c3k Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 Good point. But not without flaws. 1. It is frequently stated that "what you see is what you get". So, if existed exceptions from this general rule, what exactly the exceptions? Because when I'm plan a battle, I must exactly know what expect from each position, course of action and so on. 2. OK, we have some 'representations' in the game. What is about to represent man run out from building, placed a bomb on top of tank and run back to safety while tank makes BOOM? So again, I haven't see the differences. I'm certainly not in the position to defend design decisions. 1. You are correct. This is one exception. So is buddy aid (where does that guy go?). So, too, is the surrender mechanic. I'm sure there are others. 2. Yeah, I'd LIKE to have that happen as well. But, if there is an abstraction of a man running out of the building, shouldn't his level of protection plummet? What would your reaction be if your 9 man squad, in a building, suddenly became an 8 man squad after a tank drove by? Because, you know, the game abstracted a man running out to blow up the tank, but he got shot. It'd be like a tank counting toll: 8 men left, 7 men left, 6 men left, BOOM got a tank, 5 men left, etc. So, I UNDERSTAND why the squad in a building has to STICK to the building. Players would scream that they never wanted ANYONE to leave the protection of the building. Which decision does less harm? Yeah, having them all stay. In the open, it is much more reasonable for a man to dart over and place an explosive charge, then rejoin the squad. The cover difference of a man leaving one part of an action spot to another is not as great as that of a man leaving a building. I would PREFER to SEE a single man take that action. I ASSUME it isn't done for two reasons: the AI cannot arbitrarily split teams off a squad; the single man concept is anathema to the coding design. If the AI could arbitrarily split teams off of your squad, there would be a lot of problems keeping your guys corraled and moving in the right direction. I would LOVE to have designated tank-hunting teams (even if they're split off a squad), leave cover on their own to stalk a tank in the tank's blind spot. THAT would be a cool thing. Yes, TacAI defenders in built up areas are at a disadvantage. A workaround available to designers would be to buy some tank-hunters and set them up hidden, with ambush commands, in built up areas, but not IN buildings. A fudge, but it would make the attacker at least scout the roads before driving through. It's a game. It's not perfect. This trade off seems to've made with a bit of thought behind it. You may WISH for something different, but this is what it is. Ken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 I've seen grenades lobbed on to armoured vehicles many times. In fact I've just had a Stug damaged from one such attack in my last battle. No infantry in support either, so they were definitely looking at taking the tank out with small arms. Was the StuG buttoned or opened up? (My _guess_ is it was opened up.) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockinHarry Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 2. Panzerfausts. Yes, it have a backblast and generally couldn't be fired from inside the building. But how it happen in real life? Lets imagine - german AT-man sit in the house. US armor moved down the street alongside. Hans wait, while tank passed the house, then run through door to street, aim and fire to panzer's rear. Then retreat to house. Mission accomplished. What we have in CMBN? This trick can be done in real-time mode: wait while tank passed the house, then issue command 'run' to street and 'target' to fire at enemy. But how can we do this in WEGO mode? Player must estimate the speed of tank, time when it is safe to run to the street, set cover ark to force pixelman fire at exact target... Almost impossible, I suppose. So, maybe BF discarded that prohibition on firing from the building? At least for PzF-30, 30k and bazooka. Scherck have enough range to fire even from positions at open and really strong backblast, so it may be forbidden to indoor use. Might give this a read: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=100839 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis1973 Posted March 19, 2012 Author Share Posted March 19, 2012 It's a game. It's not perfect. This trade off seems to've made with a bit of thought behind it. You may WISH for something different, but this is what it is. I'm just want that infantry have a real chance to fight off enemy tanks in urban areas. As this was in real life, as this was in CMx1 games, as it was in CMSF. Not a lot, I suppose. Because how it looks now - it is total unrealistic. And some strange logic for me - so, if tank stay near squad at open squad must reduced it size every given time to represent an failed attempts to put mine on top of tank? Might give this a read: http://www.battlefront.com/community...d.php?t=100839 Yes, I have read this. Good topic, the only thing that I can't see there is any post from BFC team. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 I'm just want that infantry have a real chance to fight off enemy tanks in urban areas. As this was in real life, as this was in CMx1 games, as it was in CMSF. Not a lot, I suppose. Because how it looks now - it is total unrealistic. And some strange logic for me - so, if tank stay near squad at open squad must reduced it size every given time to represent an failed attempts to put mine on top of tank? Yes, I have read this. Good topic, the only thing that I can't see there is any post from BFC team. Responding to the part I've bolded in your original message: I think you've misunderstood me. I took a hypothetical example and extrapolated possible results. Right now, in game, v1.00 up to and including v1.10, infantry NOT in a building can kill a tank. The tank has to be adjacent (8m or so) to the infantry. The infantry attack is shown graphically by a grenade flying through the air. This is an ABSTRACTION which simulates a man (or two) setting a charge of some sort on the tank. There are NO disappearing/dying men. All the infantry stay put: they are vulnerable - normally - in that location. The soaring grenade is the only clue that they're attacking the tank. I hope that's clear. Ken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanzfeld Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 Ken, Get your I-pad yet? LOL! Good to see you again. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 Oh, don't even get me started!!! (If it gets broken, do _I_ have to pay!?!?!) (What about Mexican customs?) Grrr. See what you've done? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanzfeld Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 It was made clear to us that if it breaks we DO NOT pay. Stolen? All you need is Po-Po report. Sorry for going OT everyone. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil stanbridge Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 Was the StuG buttoned or opened up? (My _guess_ is it was opened up.) No it was buttoned - it only had two crew members as well as I was using it as bait 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.