Jump to content
Battlefront is now Slitherine ×

problem with gun's crew behavior


Recommended Posts

Hi,

I was surprised with the behavior a sIG33/150mm gun's crew.

I ordered to the gun a direct fire on a building.

But as the gun was rotating to target its objective, crewmen began to rifle with their weapons, revealing the gun's position to the enemy before it had even fired !

Then The gun shot and the crew was still firing. Very stupid behavior as i didn't want any fight from the crew, but only from the gun !

Is this a standard behavior for all gun's crew for a direct fire odrer in the game ?

Is there a solution to ban the crewmen firing and allow only the gun firing (like CMX1) ?

Will be this problem fixed ?

If there is not fixing issue, this is the end of use of big guns with direct fire...

Or may be the game engine assimilates the crew as the gun. What kind of shell men's use, that could be a question...:D

regards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One very common explanation is that the gun/tank/HMG/whatever couldn't see/target the building but a few of the crew could, so they fired (instead of auto-moving the gun to an appropriate firing position which would be the ideal). It's one of the CM1 things I miss: "If you can see it, you can shoot at it."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One very common explanation is that the gun/tank/HMG/whatever couldn't see/target the building but a few of the crew could, so they fired (instead of auto-moving the gun to an appropriate firing position which would be the ideal). It's one of the CM1 things I miss: "If you can see it, you can shoot at it."

He said the cannon did fire at the target so it was not an LOS issue.

AFAIK there is no way to order any unit to only use their heavy weapons, although you can do the opposite with Target Light. What would be needed is a Target Heavy command, which would also solve the problem of Bazooka/Shrek teams firing their small arms at tank commanders to give away their location. I think Zmoney's work around would work in this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever the reason.

It's not realistic.

Not only that, it adds weight to the side of imbalance that makes defenses weaker (in unrealistic manners) and there is a piple of stuff weighting down that side already. This stubborn reliance on 1:1 whether it's sophisticated enough or not can kill the game in the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that I think about it, it also affects snipers who can't stop their spotter from shooting. I don't think it's so much a 1:1 issue as a lack of SOPs issue, or failing that a lack of smart TacAI issue.

But it is true that it makes defense harder, which is already much harder than it should be. I hope it's on BFC's radar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jawsconan,

Do you have a savegame?

Ken

No, i haven't as i found that during a test. If you want to test it, very easy.

Setup a QB, buy a sIG33 gun, turn it towards an other direction than your target during the setup, then order it to target a building (which is in another direction as mentioned above).

During the next turn, your big gun will rotate and you will watch at the joke.

Another VERY BIG problem is the ban for zooks, shreks, etc. to shoot from inside a building. Is there any provisional issue to fix this ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another VERY BIG problem is the ban for zooks, shreks, etc. to shoot from inside a building. Is there any provisional issue to fix this ?

There are literally ENDLESS pages of discussion on this. Read them. I'm getting so bored of every other person mentioning this. AFAIK it's a design decision - on the whole, they cannot be fired from buildings due to overpressure & back-blast issues.

I don't think that Battlefront are going to change this. Chucking it on to the end of every complaint about the game is just irritating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm getting so bored of every other person mentioning this. AFAIK it's a design decision - on the whole, they cannot be fired from buildings due to overpressure & back-blast issues.

I don't think that Battlefront are going to change this. Chucking it on to the end of every complaint about the game is just irritating.

Given that it is one of the few oft-discussed changes that could be made in a patch -- as opposed to having to wait for the next game -- I for one intend to keep boring, annoying and generally pissing people off by bringing it up every now and then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that it is one of the few oft-discussed changes that could be made in a patch -- as opposed to having to wait for the next game -- I for one intend to keep boring, annoying and generally pissing people off by bringing it up every now and then.

Every now and again? It feels like just about every other post mentions it somewhere. And, whilst battlefront might be able to patch it, it isn't a bug - it's a design decision. And it's, on balance, one which feels right to me in most circumstances.

As it's not a bug, I think it's unlikely that they are going to change it, no matter how many people complain. I just find it incredibly boring that people won't shut up about 1 thing that is unlikely to change. Especially as there have been huge discussions about it in the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As it's not a bug, I think it's unlikely that they are going to change it, no matter how many people complain. I just find it incredibly boring that people won't shut up about 1 thing that is unlikely to change. Especially as there have been huge discussions about it in the past.

I'm sorry if i make you bored.

I am new on this forum, new with the game, so i had not read yet what was written before on it. And i don't think i have the time to read hundreds of pages since the release of the game.

If you read all, you're lucky and may be it was less boring than what newbies write and ask for.

May be you consider only veterans players can use the forum. Hopefully not.

So, many other newbies will ask for things you already know and that many members already know as well.

Have a good day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every now and again? It feels like just about every other post mentions it somewhere. And, whilst battlefront might be able to patch it, it isn't a bug - it's a design decision. And it's, on balance, one which feels right to me in most circumstances.

As it's not a bug, I think it's unlikely that they are going to change it, no matter how many people complain. I just find it incredibly boring that people won't shut up about 1 thing that is unlikely to change. Especially as there have been huge discussions about it in the past.

If it comes up that often it's probably because a fair number of people are unhappy about it. Although it may feel right to you, it feels wrong to me in that it makes something that was already unrealistically hard in the game -- infantry taking on tanks -- even more hard.

And at the end of the day I primarily post about things that I think will make the game better, not to entertain people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are literally ENDLESS pages of discussion on this. Read them. I'm getting so bored of every other person mentioning this. AFAIK it's a design decision - on the whole, they cannot be fired from buildings due to overpressure & back-blast issues.

I don't think that Battlefront are going to change this. Chucking it on to the end of every complaint about the game is just irritating.

I have to admit to some sympathy for this, however I get the point folks are making about trying to simulate urban combat. Problem is in general I think urban combat is simply difficult to produce accurately at the moment. Whether it be tank gun elevation, backblast concerns, action spot position for trying to position a team for ambush etc etc The constraints on AI movement, tactical placement etc just magnify any minor issue into something that can be a bit more frustrating and a lot more complicated. That being said I still think CMx2 is leagues ahead of anything else and the game and engine will continue to see improvement. I disagree with redwolf that the issue is this "reliance on 1:1". Personally I think the move to 1:1 is one of the things that really makes the game for me.

At a certain point though I agree, folks have to get past worrying about perfection and accept there are limits to what can be done right now. Yes it may be a bit frustratiing, but BFC has explained their position ad nauseum and their reasoning. It isn't because they are happy with the limitations, it is simply that they recognize what is possible given x amount of resources and time. If they come up with a way to implement something better I am sure we will see it in another series.

And just to put some reference on this IF they happened to deal with the gun elevation issue, we would simply move onto something else next. Who is still waiting for the "we have to have basements and sewer movement for Stalingrad" rant? You know it is coming.

The upside is, folks are only pointing it out because they love the game and want it to live up to every bit of it's potential..and we are notoriously impatient.

So are we gonna have basements in the bulge family? :D I can cite tons of examples from the Huertgen fighting on why it HAS to be included!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At a certain point though I agree, folks have to get past worrying about perfection and accept there are limits to what can be done right now. Yes it may be a bit frustratiing, but BFC has explained their position ad nauseum and their reasoning. It isn't because they are happy with the limitations, it is simply that they recognize what is possible given x amount of resources and time. If they come up with a way to implement something better I am sure we will see it in another series.

The thing is, the AT weapon usage in building issue is one of the few things they actually can change. It's not an issue of not enough time or resources. People go on and on about things such as Armored Covered arcs and fire, things that are certainly worthy of discussion but that BFC have categorically stated will not be included in this game, but apparently we can't talk about something they could do if they just wanted to because it's not entertaining enough to read.

So what can we talk about? Would someone like to start a Bren tripod thread? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is, the AT weapon usage in building issue is one of the few things they actually can change. It's not an issue of not enough time or resources. People go on and on about things such as Armored Covered arcs and fire, things that are certainly worthy of discussion but that BFC have categorically stated will not be included in this game, but apparently we can't talk about something they could do if they just wanted to because it's not entertaining enough to read.

So what can we talk about? Would someone like to start a Bren tripod thread? ;)

No! Basements, we are supposed to talk about basements!

Seriously though I never suggested anyone shouldn't talk about it, just that maybe we do have to exercise a bit of patience and appreciate things from BFCs perspective. Any change including adding AT fire from buildings is a change and does require time. Perhaps not much, but I have no way of knowing one way or the other. I think BFCs statement is simply that the solution may end up being no better than the current problem. For example, the request is to allow At fire from buildings to compensate for the issue of tank gun elevations, seems simple and fairly logical. Now however that also allows AT fire from buildings in any situation, something BFC has categorically stated they think is not realistic. As Phil pointed out in another thread, it also then would likely have to include figuring out an AI response and then you end up in a thread like this

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=103562&page=4

So we have a situation where to try and introduce a remedy for urban combat now allowing a set of behavior across the board when urban combat was not the primary aspect of the fighting in NW Europe. I think that may be part of BFCs reluctance (BFC feel happy to chime in and swat me for mis speaking), you change a dynamic that affects behavior far beyond the limited area you are trying to correct.

Don't get me wrong in all this, I am actually one of those who really wants this game to function in an urban environment and feel that there are a number of things I'd like it to do better. I also agree that really nailing down the advantages of infantry in urban combat are a bit harder to depict currently. For the moment I am more focused on how to work with it from the perspective of map design rather than trying to change unit behavior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the 1:1 ratio that is referred to?

Cmx1 used a simulated squad similar to what you used to see in cardboard counters in ASL. A 3 man unit represented a full squad, 2 men a depleted squad and a single man a team. At least that is what I recall of the unit representations. I haven't touched it since shortly after CMBN was announced. Now you see all your pixeltruppen and their firing behavior independently represented.

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...