Reverendo Posted November 6, 1999 Share Posted November 6, 1999 A pair of suggestions about fire... a) (Graphical aspect) :¬) Fire is fairly well rendered when tanks and other vehicles burst in flames, since the square shape is small enough to look round, as it should be. But when a land square burns, it doesn't look too good. Specially because the smoke screen is not big enough (this is not too realistic, a burning wheat field should make a hell of a smoke screen, not a tiny column from the middle of the square) (About effects) I have never seen an infantry squad enter a land on fire, but I have seen tanks doing so. I heard tanks attacked by flamethrowers turned into bloody ovens, and I think it SHOULD be so. We should remember that tanks' armour is generally made of steel (at least during WWII) and it should get damned hot when surrounded by fire. Shouldn't tanks suffer losses on the crew when standing on a fire hex/area? ------------------ Regards Reverendo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted November 6, 1999 Share Posted November 6, 1999 Reverendo, They CAN suffer losses to fire BUT they don't always suffer them.. I can affirm FTs can take out tanks. It's actually one of my favourite ambushes.. The combined infantry, FT, Panzerschreck ambush is devastating. it'll rid you of a tank plus a platoon of infantry in 20 or 30 seconds if done right. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverendo Posted November 7, 1999 Author Share Posted November 7, 1999 The FTs ting is fair enough, but what about burning areas? P.E: burning wheatfields (my tanks may LIVE in them without noticing any problem) And what about smoke? I feel the amount of smoke generated by burning terrain is far smaller than it should be. The game only draws a small column protruding from the middle of a fire 'box', while it should be smoking the whole area. If fire happens so seldom, it should have far more interesting effects... ------------------ Regards Reverendo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted November 7, 1999 Share Posted November 7, 1999 If you drive your tanks into a fire zone then they'll drive out. I've seen tanks killed by fire. 2. The little smoke graphic for fire is PURELY graphical. It has no impact on the game. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverendo Posted November 7, 1999 Author Share Posted November 7, 1999 But it should! Just try to imagine the amount of smoke generated by a burning wheat field. It should obscure LOS for units trying to shoot through the whole area... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted November 8, 1999 Share Posted November 8, 1999 Reverendo, NOT what I said. I said the LITTLE smoke graphic has no effect on the game.. The size of the graphic is independent of the effect on LOS ok? ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverendo Posted November 8, 1999 Author Share Posted November 8, 1999 Aaaaah, ok. Sorry lad, sometimes I'm perhaps a bit slow... :¬) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JonS Posted November 8, 1999 Share Posted November 8, 1999 Sooooo, apart from liberal use of the LOS tool there is no way to check smoke LOS obstructions, correct? Put another way, getting down in the dirt with the troopies and just looking (view 1) will NOT give an accurate LOS representation? JonS ------------------ Quo Fas et Vino du Femme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Oberst Posted November 8, 1999 Share Posted November 8, 1999 JonS, You gotta use the LOS tool. Also try to maintain awareness of the current magnification level you are viewing with. More than once, until I was properly "trained", I was getting angry that I could not target something that I could see, one instance in particular. I was trying to target a tank for a 3/4 rear bazooka shot. "Whaddya mean, no line of sight?!?" Then I hit the resizing key by mistake, and the unit got bigger. "Oh, *expletive deleted*!" I sized units to normal, and voila, the realization. "Damn, I can't see it! Now my squad over in that building is truly hosed." Go! *grumble, grumble* as the Tiger pivots his turret, and calmly levels the structure with two main gun shots, and chews up the remaining body parts with MG fire. All this simple lesson cost me was a platoon leader, a bazooka team (supressed), and an infantry squad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullethead Posted November 9, 1999 Share Posted November 9, 1999 Speaking of fires... Other day I had a zookdude apparently ignite his own building with backblast. The house erupted just as he fired and the only incoming rounds were rifle bullets, as far as I could tell, and none of it hit at the instant the fire started. Needless to say, the zookdude boogied out the door ASAP. I was a bit disappointed, however, that his clothes weren't on fire <G>. -Bullethead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Los Posted November 9, 1999 Share Posted November 9, 1999 I for one would like to see a better smoke graphic. The one that's in there works great for a burning tank but leaves much to be desired as a burning building, or wheat field or as a smoke round. We could use a graphic that maybe is wider and lower but more importantly covers all the space actually blocked by the smoke. (Whatever the radius is for a smoke round for instance?) Most of the fighting you'll ever see on documentaries will have lots of smoke and burning stuff laying around. There's way to much visibility in these games compared to actual battlefields. But that's just something we have to live with.I know it's a limitation of the engine. but perhaps a different smoke graphic to distinguish between burning wrekcs might help. Not a show stopper but something to throw on the list somewhere. Los Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark L Posted November 16, 1999 Share Posted November 16, 1999 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Other day I had a zookdude apparently ignite his own building with backblast.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I apparently just witnessed the same thing. At first I couldn't tell what happened. I was playing the Germans in Last Defence, and on turn 2 a building just seemed to spontaneously combust! Upon closer inspection, I noticed a suspicious bazooka round detonating near one of my half-tracks. Never did see the bazooka team again... The whole building suddenly bursting into flames seems a little much, IMHO. Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted November 16, 1999 Share Posted November 16, 1999 I have torched a couple of buildings that way myself. First time I was stunned by the exellent level of realism, the second time I was stunned by my own stupidity of doing it again. But I've never burned a forest, can you light forest with the bazooka rearflame? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted November 16, 1999 Share Posted November 16, 1999 I don't think so Jarmo. I think the setting fire to houses is tied to the backblast being confined in a house whereas in trees it isn't. I usually don't put zooks in houses so thankfully this hasn't happened to me (yet) ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted November 16, 1999 Share Posted November 16, 1999 I had this zook thing happen to me twice. The second time there was an HQ unit in the house also, and they both freaked out and got out of the house. They got shot as soon as they left the building. Last time I did that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Los Posted November 16, 1999 Share Posted November 16, 1999 God I hate the word zook. You guys are vomiting all over our historical tradions and nomencalture! We should also have the commander graphic with his hat on backwards and firing the pistol sideways. Like some idjit on the block. Hey lets reflect the current times! Los (LOL) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark L Posted November 17, 1999 Share Posted November 17, 1999 My concern was mainly with how quickly the bazooka-ignited fire appeared to turn into a full 400 sq. m. conflagration. (within seconds). It was the first time I'd seen terrain blaze in CM. It seems to me that any fire, including those started by a flamethrower, should perhaps spread a little slower? Maybe this has already been discussed previously... Mark [This message has been edited by Mark L (edited 11-17-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted November 17, 1999 Share Posted November 17, 1999 Yeah, we can't control the burn length graphically. However, you will notice that vehicles and men have a decent chance of getting out of a burning piece of terrain. This simulates the slow start even if graphically it is instantaneous. Once on fire though, nobody will go back into that area. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimonFox Posted November 17, 1999 Share Posted November 17, 1999 "Yeah, we can't control the burn length graphically" Pity, then you could have Ronsons, er, I mean Shermans burning fast and furious and other tanks a bit more slowly ? do vehicles 'burn out' over the course of a scenario Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts