TeAcH Posted August 5, 2000 Author Share Posted August 5, 2000 David, Thanks for the pics. They help. I will try that next time but I must say what you illustrate begs the question: Why do I need to move to the side? Why cant the engine do it from any perspective, including ground level from the firing units point of view? Seems like your screenshots ilustrate and strengthen my point. I can fiddle with the targetting 'till the sun goes down, but why should I have to? And what harm is there in making the structures selectable. Perhaps the code isnt robust enough for this to happen. That might be the case. No offense bro but fiddle with it all day (I might have to also to get it to work) but I would like the game's targetting addressed in this regard. BTS has been gracious enough (and wise enough) to allow gamers input. Lets not be afraid to take them up on their offer. TeAcH [This message has been edited by TeAcH (edited 08-04-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted August 5, 2000 Share Posted August 5, 2000 TeAcH wrote: > what you illustrate begs the question: Why do I need to move to the side? The simple answer is, because you're playing a 3D game on a 2D screen. You can point in a given direction, but the computer doesn't know what depth you want to target at. This is okay when aiming at the ground, but when you're shooting at a deep object like a building, it becomes a problem. It's up to Charles whether or not the game can be tweaked to work around this. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeAcH Posted August 5, 2000 Author Share Posted August 5, 2000 Thanks David for the posts. I see that we are at an impass. I appreciate the discussion. Hopefully the ever-careful eye of BTS will peruse this topic and posts for future consideration. Take care, TeAcH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeAcH Posted August 27, 2000 Author Share Posted August 27, 2000 Fixed in 1.05!@!! YAHOO. Damn! You guys at BTS do listen. I already knew that from other comments and fixes, but this one was close to my heart. Perhaps this issue was already on the table before I brought it up. Either way...THANKS!! TeAcH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted August 27, 2000 Share Posted August 27, 2000 I set up a test map during our original discussion, to see just what effect a collapsing building had on the units inside. I went back to this map in 1.05 and tried it again. On this and other evidence, it strikes me that destroying a building doesn't have as absolute an effect on the units inside as people seem to think. I do like the tweak in 1.05, but more from an aesthetic than a tactical viewpoint. I'll just be glad to play against anyone who thinks a unit in a collapsed building isn't worth worrying about. =) David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeAcH Posted August 27, 2000 Author Share Posted August 27, 2000 Ahem. David, you totally miss the point. Think about the patch and what I said. An aesthetic point of view? Hardly! Why is it so hard for some folks to understand that once the building collapses, the tank will now be released from the rubble fire (locked area fire) to target enemy still in the rubble OR enemy fleeing from the rubble. Why is this bad?? Sheesh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted August 27, 2000 Share Posted August 27, 2000 TeAcH wrote: > Why is it so hard for some folks to understand that once the building collapses, the tank will now be released from the rubble fire (locked area fire) to target enemy still in the rubble OR enemy fleeing from the rubble. Why is this bad?? I miss the point? When a building collapses, you're not going to get any units fleeing from the rubble, because (a) they'll likely be shaken, and ( the rubble provides very good cover. Neither is your tank necessarily going to target units still in the rubble, because that assumes they are visible, which in most cases they are not. I didn't say the new behaviour in 1.05 is bad. But if I had infantry in buildings defending against tanks, this patch would sure be a benefit to my defence. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeAcH Posted August 28, 2000 Author Share Posted August 28, 2000 Well, the 1.05 patch readme says this: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Units area-targeting a building which collapses and has no visible surviving enemy troops in the resulting rubble will cancel their area target.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The key is no visible units. If on the subsequent turn, you wanna dump rounds into rubble where there isnt a hint of a unit, be my guest. You know, the only part of you last comment that gave me gas, was when you insinuated that those of us who favor this fix must be dumb and you'll be happy to play our inept butts all day. Whatever. BTS fixed it. Im outa here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted August 28, 2000 Share Posted August 28, 2000 TeAcH wrote: > You know, the only part of you last comment that gave me gas, was when you insinuated that those of us who favor this fix must be dumb and you'll be happy to play our inept butts all day. Sorry, I'll refrain from making any jokes in future, in case I hurt anyone's fragile feelings. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts