Jump to content

Things left undone, minor bugs, etc


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 99
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'd like separate HQ silhouette files for each nation and maybe even branches. Not only because it'd look nice. For instance, once you're playing there's nothing in the UI that tells you at-a-glance whether you're currently playing with British, Canadian or Polish forces. Or is there? Haven't gotten around to actually playing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do believe one of the weakest points of the game is foxholes and trenches. I know we wanted them to be FOW but I wish they were different somehow. As of now they are always spotted in LOS even though they are FOW which makes ambush impossible from them, they don't offer the protection that they really should, they don't really but up against a hedgrow well at all, and they are ugly.

I think what Steiner was talking about was CMx1 style 2D foxholes and trenches and our troops bodies vanish when they go into them so just the head sticks out. No deform of the land.

To tell you the truth I really dislike the current foxholes and trenches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what Steiner was talking about was CMx1 style 2D foxholes and trenches and our troops bodies vanish when they go into them so just the head sticks out. No deform of the land.

That's too complicated to understand for JonS. :D

To tell you the truth I really dislike the current foxholes and trenches.

Me too.

If the engine would allow it, we would not only have a much better spotting/camouflage behaviour, but finally dug in ATGs and "pits" for TDs/tanks would become possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do believe one of the weakest points of the game is foxholes and trenches. I know we wanted them to be FOW but I wish they were different somehow. As of now they are always spotted in LOS even though they are FOW which makes ambush impossible from them, they don't offer the protection that they really should, they don't really but up against a hedgrow well at all, and they are ugly.

I think what Steiner was talking about was CMx1 style 2D foxholes and trenches and our troops bodies vanish when they go into them so just the head sticks out. No deform of the land.

To tell you the truth I really dislike the current foxholes and trenches.

That would require a completely different set of models, action etc etc. Not that it is impossible, but it is not a simple request and then we'd probably still complain as without deformation they'd still look odd. You pixeltruppen would be cut off and not sure how that would look when modelling them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would require a completely different set of models, action etc etc.

How comes you know that? Not necessarily. If the engine could properly display units below surface and the hitting calculations are indeed "engineered", then a hit is calculated by intersecting with the model. If 2/3 of the model are below surface, the hit probability will be reduced.

Ofcourse additional functions and methods would be necessary as soon as a unit is "in" such a trench/foxhole/pit, but this should be also true for units in houses or trenches right now.

You pixeltruppen would be cut off and not sure how that would look when modelling them.

The current implementation of foxholes does not look that good, either. But the current implementation has the big disadvantage, that ATGs cannot be used correctly at all. One of the most important weapons.

And with the distance of only a few meters, the graphical representation of cut off units becomes irrelevant anyway, because the very dark vertical walls and the shadow make a hole or trench appear as flat area anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How comes you know that? Not necessarily. If the engine could properly display units below surface and the hitting calculations are indeed "engineered", then a hit is calculated by intersecting with the model. If 2/3 of the model are below surface, the hit probability will be reduced.

Ofcourse additional functions and methods would be necessary as soon as a unit is "in" such a trench/foxhole/pit, but this should be also true for units in houses or trenches right now.

The current implementation of foxholes does not look that good, either. But the current implementation has the big disadvantage, that ATGs cannot be used correctly at all. One of the most important weapons.

And with the distance of only a few meters, the graphical representation of cut off units becomes irrelevant anyway, because the very dark vertical walls and the shadow make a hole or trench appear as flat area anyway.

I don't but then again I am not making suggestions on what to do with the game engine without knowing how they would interact either. Puts us about in the same situation- we don't know....

However I am using AT guns now and fairly effectively. At least when I don't put em in the dang wide open w/o realizing it - (no I haven't forgotten that set up in Bois de Baugin vKleist)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do believe one of the weakest points of the game is foxholes and trenches. As of now they are always spotted in LOS even though they are FOW which makes ambush impossible from them, they don't offer the protection that they really should, they don't really but up against a hedgrow well at all, and they are ugly.

The first three assertions in that second sentence are untrue. True the graphic doesn't have have a linear shape which would make them suitable for use behind hedgerows. But you already have the berm for protection even if one can't duplicate some of the truly elaborate defenses devised by the Germans in the bocage.

BFC is perfectly capable of coming up with a terrain deforming version of foxholes that would retain FOW and look better. But its implementation would freeze out the X number of gamers with low end rigs. Maybe one of your PBEM partners?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would prefer trenches, foxholes or pits painted as a flat dark areas on the surface instead of a 3D-model if would allow to model dug in units.

I expect that because of shot tracking, a 2D model such as you suggest would not afford any extra protection, which would kind of negate the whole point of having them in the first place.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I expect that because of shot tracking, a 2D model such as you suggest would not afford any extra protection, which would kind of negate the whole point of having them in the first place.

Under the hood of the displayed 2D-abstraction for the player, the effect could be calculated in 3D:

The shown 2D-visualizations of foxholes/trenches/pits could be represented for the calculation with a normal cylinder or cube or any other ground deforming object.

Since the vector of the explosion torwards any unit is known anyway, the "only" mechanism that is needed, is to activate an invisble 3D-calculation as soon as the vector of the explosion/trajectory could affect a unit within a 2D-foxhole/trench/pit.

Probably even very simple abstractions without 3D-calcs would be sufficient for a perfect gaming experience anyway:

Just determine the maximum angle of the explosion vector downwards into the hole/trench/pit. This gives the true exposed height of the unit to the explosion (or projectile), without the need to show it visually.

Example 1:

If a grenade explodes exactly above a foxhole, and a unit is within the theoretical radius, the explosion vector aims downwards on the unit. The unit is in a 2D hole, so the abstracted calc for these objects is activated. The vector aims almost vertically into the hole -> the exposition factor is at maximum and the whole unit is exposed to the explosive effect.

Example 2:

A grenade explodes on the ground before a hole. A unit is within the theoretical radius and wihthin the 2D-object. Maybe raising it's head above ground. The explosion vector "hits" it. The lowest possible angle of the vector is horizontal, so only the parts of the unit above the 2D-plate are exposed.

Example 3:

Explosion/shooting from an inclined position into a 2D-hole. The trajectory/explosion vector aims at a unit in the 2D-hole. The angle of the trajectory determines how much down into the hole the exposition reaches (depending on the orientation of the trench/pit). This determines how much of the unit is additionally exposed and the exposition factor is raised accordingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the CW scenario "My Honor is Loyalty", there are instances where a SdKfz 251/1 SS crew member (typically the 'Gunner') is wearing a helmet with Luftwaffe markings (flying eagle, on the left side of helmet). I haven't time to test whether this occurs in other scenarios.

This is my very first post -- so please pardon me if this issue has already been picked up elsewhere on the forum!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the CMBN base game, German vehicles such as half-tracks, armored cars, and kubelwagen have Heer plates (marked "WH"). So in the current CMBN-CW release, it is historically inaccurate for SS (and Luftwaffe) units to be operating vehicles with such markings (vehicles should have "SS" and "WL" plates, respectively).

I assume that Battlefront may be relying on the mod community to rectify this by creating alternate vehicle skins. However, in potential scenarios where mixed German units are in a single battle, alternate vehicle skins with specific service plates may not be good fix. Perhaps the best option is if vehicle markings are made more generic by default (i.e. no identifying service plates). Any other ideas?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you playing on Elite or Iron? Enemy AT guns show the infantry symbol at those levels.

I can't rmember which skill level I'm using. I'm just wondering what's the point of showing that infantry symbol, because if I select the gun it shows all the details (like the fact that it's a 57mm AT gun) in UI's info panel. I can also see that the selected unit's 3d objects include a gun.

IMO if the game shows less accurate info about a unit, this same accuracy should be used in all parts of the UI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just wondering what's the point of showing that infantry symbol, because if I select the gun it shows all the details (like the fact that it's a 57mm AT gun) in UI's info panel. I can also see that the selected unit's 3d objects include a gun.

I could not agree more. I have posted about it before suggesting ways to make the Elite and Iron modes better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The patch was welcome and has improved things but there are still some weird phenomena that I see on a regular basis:

1) With the squads that are large enuff to split into three teams, it is quite common to split off an AT team that still has an inf icon, while another team with the LMG's (and no AT capability) has the AT icon. It seems to have something to do with the order in which one splits the teams.

2) HQ's that are far away from any radio or on-map arty, do not possess radios in their equipment rosters, nor show any radio communication, are still able to call on arty (mortars for sure). I wonder if this is a campaign issue. The fix that made sure that leaderless platoons got new platoon HQ's in their next campaign mission, may still be missing the HQ radio icon - even tho' the game system acts as if the replacement HQ does have a radio (as it should).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There´s still an issue with foxholes and craters (any) beeing in the same action spot. In example if there´s a single medium crater & foxholes, infantry would bunch up in that single crater, instead of using the FHs. In case of small craters, these would be hardly seen between or under the foxhole objects, but infantry as well would position behind/between the foxholes.

If it´s rather a game "feature", could it bee that craters in same action spot with foxholes, would destroy/disable these, making them unusable?:confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There´s still an issue with foxholes and craters (any) beeing in the same action spot. In example if there´s a single medium crater & foxholes, infantry would bunch up in that single crater, instead of using the FHs. In case of small craters, these would be hardly seen between or under the foxhole objects, but infantry as well would position behind/between the foxholes.

I just ran into this myself. I moved a 4-man squad into an action spot with 4 foxholes and one crater from a Sherman 75mm tank round. Using face commands I got 3 of them into foxholes, but 1 just sat in that little crater staring at the foxhole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...