sburke Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Thanks, sfhand. I just want to quickly state again that I really want to see tank riders added to BN/FI. I recently finished a huge custom QB in CMRT where tank riders played a major role outside the hot zones in the battle. They were vital in my being able to shift my reserves around--even allowing me to escape a distant threat that would eventually put my initial staging ground in enemy LOS. It was great fun, felt very realistic, and allowed me to really cut down on the mouse clicks to get my infantry repositioned. Again, it was all outside of enemy LOS. And, I was Axis. I could definitely see the Western Allies doing the same kind of maneuvering. There are a lot of pics of Amis and Brits riding tanks outside of harms way. I'd sure like to have the feature... and I don't mind paying. We seem to be running the same subjects across multiple threads now. In regards to this particular item BFs response had to do with the sheer amount of effort required, not an objection to the feature. My bet is the work for this will be in the Bulge title and could then be part of a future upgrade. It makes it far simpler for BF to get a return on their labor then rather than trying to price it on a patch. Don't give up hope on seeing it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobo Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 YOU ARE IN THE WRONG THREAD!!!! POST HERE! http://www.battlefront.com/community...d.php?t=116220 Thank you! Bobo 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rambler Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Uh oh, somebody forgot to tell these guys they were acting historically incorrect, and in Normandy no less: (from Archives Normandie) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Not riding into combat. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macisle Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Not riding into combat. Using tank riders doesn't always mean sending them into combat on the tanks. If a player does that, he suffers the casualties and most players wouldn't do it more than once or twice if they're smart. Rather, just like in this pic, most players would use tank riders to rapidly redeploy units in safe areas of larger maps. That's what I want them for in BN/FI. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rambler Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Not riding into combat. Hm, are you sure? https://www.flickr.com/photos/photosnormandie/6115592444/in/photolist- Progression in the grove in the area west of Juvigny-le-Tertre near Reffuveille, August 7, 1944. Sherman tanks on which took up many foot soldiers walk past two Half-tracks hidden in the shade of a row of high jet. These are elements of the CCB of the 3rd Armored Division. Both Sherman ("carry" the foot soldiers of the 1st Bn, 36th Armored Infantry Regiment mounted on the back shelves) and two Half-tracks belong to the i Co, 1st Bn, 33rd Armored Regiment leave for Le Mesnil Adelée to push against the German attack (Operation Luttich). This August 7 at 10:30 CCB was ordered to send a reconnaissance in force to the Adelée Mesnil, which is released at 15:00. U.S. units in this town are: B & I Cos, 119th Inf. (30th Inf Div. US.), The 1st Bn, 33rd AR and the 1st Bn, 36th AIR (3rd Armd Div. US). They fought the following units: SS Panzer Abt Aufklärungs one of 1.SS Pz Div. Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler and Kampfgruppe Oberst Hans Schacke consists of the following units of the 2-Pz Div. : The Panzergrenadier-Regiment 304, the Panzerjäger-Abteilung 38 and the I / Pz Rgt 24 (Panther). Note that the second Sherman carries the lower part of the hood crossing rivers (trunk wading gear). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fizou Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 I just hope it will be added in later. Its a great feature, sure it takes a lot of work to get done, but let us pay for it 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pelican Pal Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Not riding into combat. Well I'll be darned. Guess we oughta remove trucks and jeeps! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Well I'll be darned. Guess we oughta remove trucks and jeeps! You are mixing two different points. One is normal expected use and function for vehicles that is already done. Tank riding regardless of when and where it is done historically requires a heck of a lot of extra work right now. It will probably come, just not right now. Relax 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempestzzzz Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Going to have to be the Grog Gestapo here. What we are talking here is Tank Desant. Desant Tactics All of yuz sound like a bunch of civilians just drafted into the US Army for the duration. (..."riding tanks...") Wiki is your friend. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_desant 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weapon2010 Posted August 12, 2014 Author Share Posted August 12, 2014 Let the player determine through trial and error how risky"tank riding" is. Let the player decide when and how he would like to use"tank riding". Let the player develope his own tactics. Let the player figure it out. Running "fast" as a full squad in the open is considered really stupid and dangerous by almost every competent squadleader, but were allowed to do it. The ironic part is the 3.0 upgrade is promoting larger maps, so now we have larger Normandy maps, which we need more of a mobility option.It would be nice to have the "option" to tank ride through the safe zone that has been properly scouted for Gerry to the forward "danger area" and dismount. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weapon2010 Posted August 12, 2014 Author Share Posted August 12, 2014 Let me add that I do totaly understand BF's economic reasoning for not adding "Tank Riders" to CMBN family.I just want them in dam it because it is cool! ok, Im done on this issue, got my 2 cents in. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Well stated, my thoughts as well. That was my first reaction too. We seem to be running the same subjects across multiple threads now. In regards to this particular item BFs response had to do with the sheer amount of effort required, not an objection to the feature. My bet is the work for this will be in the Bulge title and could then be part of a future upgrade. It makes it far simpler for BF to get a return on their labor then rather than trying to price it on a patch. Don't give up hope on seeing it. Oh interesting point. I had personally just written that feature off and not going to happen - now I have hope again - dang it:D 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pelican Pal Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 You are mixing two different points. One is normal expected use and function for vehicles that is already done. Tank riding regardless of when and where it is done historically requires a heck of a lot of extra work right now. It will probably come, just not right now. Relax I'm okay if tank riding isn't in but let's not say it's because it is unrealistic. This is a programming limitation pure and simple. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 I'm okay if tank riding isn't in but let's not say it's because it is unrealistic. This is a programming limitation pure and simple. Actually, it's a combination of the two. If it was absolutely essential (to the degree that it is in RT, say) I reckon BFC would have done the work and bumped the price. Since, for the ETO, it's largely (in historical terms) a convenience to avoid having to provide trucks on large maps, the perceived value of overcoming the programming limitation is diminished. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childress Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Let me add that I do totaly understand BF's economic reasoning for not adding "Tank Riders" to CMBN family.I just want them in dam it because it is cool! Yes, aside from the practical aspects it adds a huge amount of chrome, atmosphere and personality to the game. But I sensed Steve's impatience and weariness in providing the- understandable- rationale for not including tank riders at this time. As in 'is this worth it?' or 'did I make the right career decision?' Sim forums will get to you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pelican Pal Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 A sticky or mention of it in the original update announcement probably would have solved a lot of problems. The tank riding discussion has been occurring concurrently in like 5 different threads in different subforums. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 That was my first reaction too. Oh interesting point. I had personally just written that feature off and not going to happen - now I have hope again - dang it:D Lol don't take my word on it, it is purely a guess. Steve did post in another thread that it isn't out of the question, just a matter of what they can take on right now. It just seems to me that it makes more sense from their end to incorporate that work into bulge where they have more room for costing in the additional labor than trying to rewrite all that code into a a patch and then having to price the patch accordingly. People just never seem to apply a business perspective to patches etc. if a new feature being back ported to an older game is going to require a lot of code, I just assume it won't be done as a simple upgrade. It may show up in a later upgrade, but the work for it will have been done in some other development project. In this case the logical place would be the next NWE game family. Longer term it does present some possible issues for BF. For example suppose they introduce some feature that requires a lot of model work after the Bulge game is out. Porting that work back without a newer family to pay for the work becomes a difficult proposition. None of us want to see BF go through any more difficult financial periods. It could very well be that we may see a time when an upgrade isn't just $10. If we want the feature in the game, the labor has to be paid for. Only time will tell how the continuing upgrade process will work. I think most folks really don't understand the headache BF committed to and why it is such a big deal. Instead they nickel and dime the company to death. Disappointing, but frankly and depressingly I am getting used to it from some very vocal members of this community. They continue to act like BF is some big gaming house with oodles of resources or that changing code is simple work. They don't appreciate the complexity of the task nor the fact that BF is really pushing very very hard to maintain long term value in the game for us. When the last of the material for CMBN is released we will still be getting options for additional grades as features are added in the CMx2 game family. Some of those features may be quite labor intensive. Do we want them or not? Personally I do and I am willing to pay for that and am willing to be patient as BF works through what that means for them. I just wish a few of the nickel and dime crowd understood and appreciated what BF is trying to do. Yeah I know, what the hell have I been smoking right? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macisle Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 As I've stated before, for me, the issue is not one of price. I'm fine with BF charging whatever they need to charge and the current upgrade as it stands is well worth a measly $10. Rather, my problem is no longer seeming to have a clear path to making my old games fully current. Prior to the 3.0 (2.2?) upgrade for CMBN, my understanding was that the upgrade packs were designed to do just that in order to eliminate any feature envy or worries of a family being left behind. Clearly, that is no longer the case, as this upgrade has broken precedent by leaving stuff out. Now, again, Steve's explanation about the workload is totally understandable and I accept it without hesitation. However, I'm still sitting here with feature envy and no clear path to making CMBN fully current with CMRT. That could be a second upgrade pack or as part of some other kind of release. I don't really care. I just want the path to be there and I want to have a clear picture of it. This static could have been avoided by simply announcing the change prior to release, rather than with the release of the upgrade. So, to sum up: --Price: no issues, raise it if you need to! --Releasing a pack without all the new features: Fine, as long as we know in advance and can count on the features being made available in a 2nd upgrade pack or some-such. --Not telling us that stuff has been cut until we buy the pack: NOT GOOD. --Not giving us a clear path to making our old games fully current to avoid feature envy: NOT GOOD. I'll leave it at that. The upgrade is functioning flawlessly so far on my rig and I just had an amazing turn on umlaut's Ciembienne map that I'm going to have to make a video of when I have time. Macisle out! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 Well yeah, BF are not exactly smooth talking PR types. That has an up and down side. I don't disagree that clarity would greatly improve the process. While the announcement page is clear that not all features in CMRT are included, it is not explicit on what didn't make it nor why. I don't know that it would have stooped the multiple threads on similar issues, but it would at least have provided a better starting point. At least we aren't having to pay for some smooth talking PR team to tell us what we aren't getting. Oh incidentally I think the closest BF gets to a PR dept is Chris's twitch program. That seems to be THE place to be for informational tidbits. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 Ugh. Again, Normandy had FOs to control aircraft. Eastern Front doesn't. Eastern front has tank riding and assigned tankodestaniki . The west doesn't. Also, in CMFI Italian infantry can't split. In CMRT the Russians take a bad command hit when they split. In CMBN not to much. CMBN has many more radios within units. Also CMRT has deep marsh terrain and cabbage for crops while the others don't. CMFI includes winter weather and terrain, the other's don't. The different titles are DIFFERENT. They were meant to be DIFFERENT, they were designed to be DIFFERENT. That's the whole point of having different titles! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vinnart Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 I think it was a bad idea to leave ANY 3.0 features out including the ability to board tanks if that is the case as I have not upgraded. To me the decision to leave that feature out is just being anal grog. If a human being can board a tank let the player decide if he wants to issue the order, or not. I used boarding tanks to good use in all CMx1 games, and use it much in CMRT. For me it is no big deal personally as i haven't played Normandy in a long time and have no plan to upgrade, but I had to chime in saying I think BF should have put all features in the upgrade. The only one I might upgrade is CMFI, and hope all 3.0 features are in it. I think leaving features out turn more people off than on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 I think it was a bad idea to leave ANY 3.0 features out including the ability to board tanks if that is the case as I have not upgraded. To me the decision to leave that feature out is just being anal grog. If a human being can board a tank let the player decide if he wants to issue the order, or not. I used boarding tanks to good use in all CMx1 games, and use it much in CMRT. For me it is no big deal personally as i haven't played Normandy in a long time and have no plan to upgrade, but I had to chime in saying I think BF should have put all features in the upgrade. The only one I might upgrade is CMFI, and hope all 3.0 features are in it. I think leaving features out turn more people off than on. Whew trying to keep up with all the posts misunderstanding the issue is, well difficult. This is the one and only official position. It is not an anal grog position, but rather a business one and is not final. Official word on the tank rider feature being worked into CMBN and CMFI. The honest answer is "I don't know". The workload is massive and the historical "need" for it is small compared to Eastern Front and late war settings (i.e. Germans ran out of trucks ). That being said, it's the workload that's the issue. Now that there is support in the code for this feature we will include tank riders for new games. This does mean that a certain amount of vehicles in other games will get a makeover. Already the case, in fact, since we did have to retrofit some German vehicles for Red Thunder that are available in Normandy and a few in Italy. The problem is we shouldn't introduce this ad hoc since it makes no sense from a gameplay standpoint. I guess what you should hear is that if we could snap our fingers we'd do it. We're even willing to figure out a way that we can get it to you eventually. It's just that right now, today, we don't know exactly how we can make it happen. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vinnart Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 Thanks for reposting that sburke. I guess I missed the explanation post which is reasonable. Glad to hear they at least wanted to include it for all the games, but it was a case of workload over not wanting to do it. Bummer it is not in Italy. I was looking forward to it since there is lots of open ground in that terrain too. Oh well' I'm mainly playing CMRT these days anyway. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted August 13, 2014 Share Posted August 13, 2014 Thanks for reposting that sburke. I guess I missed the explanation post which is reasonable. Glad to hear they at least wanted to include it for all the games, but it was a case of workload over not wanting to do it. Bummer it is not in Italy. I was looking forward to it since there is lots of open ground in that terrain too. Oh well' I'm mainly playing CMRT these days anyway. Well Steve's position was not a final one so I wouldn't give up hope yet. I just wouldn't expect it soon. 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.