Claymore Posted August 10, 2000 Share Posted August 10, 2000 Gentlemen, There have been a large number of items discussed (ad nauseum) here and my thanks to BT for their sufferance with some of the posts. I table the motion that we rank the fixes which might be implemented in the next patch. Give BT a little breathing space and say that only the top 5 are doable with their current workforce allocations. Post your wishes in order preference. 5pts for 1st, 4pts for 2nd, ... My vote is for 1. fixing the 50cal uncanny accuracy 2. including more FOW 3. fixing the 2"+ mortar accuracy 4. including a roster 5. tweaking the armour on a few tanks (Maybe I can break my record for thread length with this one ------------------ he which maketh the first assault doth endanger himselfe most (sometimes) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smaragdadler Posted August 10, 2000 Share Posted August 10, 2000 I would also like to see this 'only view 1 FOW' option... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juardis Posted August 10, 2000 Share Posted August 10, 2000 depends on whether 1.04 is the last patch before work begins on CM2. 1. TCP/IP 2. Replay of movies for entire scenario 3. TCP/IP 4. wind (specify direction wind blows then slant your snow/rain in that direction and give a percentage each turn that a fire will spread to the next tile in that direction). 5. follow/convoy command and TCP/IP Most of what you stated (tweaks) is a one hour job (I'm guessing). Seriously, I want them to get CM1 as close to done as possible so that we can get to work on CM2 ASAP. So I would be happy with 1 and 2 above and the tweaks you mentioned. let me edit my statement. By tweaks I mean items 1, 3, and 5 in Claymore's list. ------------------ Jeff Abbott [This message has been edited by Juardis (edited 08-11-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntg84 Posted August 10, 2000 Share Posted August 10, 2000 Heres what I would like: TCP/IP,TCP/IP,TCP/IP,TCP/IP,TCP/IP,TCP/IP,TCP/IP,TCP/IP,TCP/IP,TCP/IP,TCP/IP,TCP/IP,TCP/IP,TCP/IP,TCP/IP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dittohead Posted August 10, 2000 Share Posted August 10, 2000 I think the mortar fix should apply to all onboard mortars. Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackhorse Posted August 10, 2000 Share Posted August 10, 2000 Quick question. Any of you guys ever fire a mortar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Steiner Posted August 10, 2000 Share Posted August 10, 2000 Hi all My five (well only 3 actually) in no particular order 1. Further tweak to TacAI ref Tanks in particular firing on any visible Inf targets (possibly an optional setting for each Afv to 'encourage' it to prioritize targets at behest of player) 2. Less destructive hits on Tanks from indirect HE/Mtrs in general (maybe up amount/degree of suppression caused as counter balance) 3. Better unit bases (maybe based on national flags) I do wish all PC games were as polished upon first release as CM. Most players are asking for tweaks to system/stats rather than anything radical (Tcp/Ip is radical I supposse but it has been already promised) Salutations ------------------ Sgt Steiner Belfast NI UK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted August 10, 2000 Share Posted August 10, 2000 I don't see the point in this. Call me a spoilsport (I am) =) , but simply listing things that have already been discussed is not going to achieve anything. Most requested changes are not definite problems - they are just opinionated requests. BTS pick up on anything which is discussed here, and they probably have their own ideas about 1.04. Anything you suggest needs to be discussed, so either (1) it's already been discussed, BTS have taken notice, and that's that, or (2) it hasn't been discussed, in which case simply listing it is not enough. So please don't come up with your lists and expect them to have any effect. The only two things that matter are subjects which have been discussed, and the list which is drawn up by BTS. No list of requests on this forum is going to make any difference whatsoever. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Posted August 10, 2000 Share Posted August 10, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Claymore: My vote is for 1. fixing the 50cal uncanny accuracy 2. including more FOW 3. fixing the 2"+ mortar accuracy 4. including a roster 5. tweaking the armour on a few tanks <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> 1. Agreed 2. Might be nice, but that would involve a lot of programing and time to implement so, you can probably forget about that. 3. I don't know anything about that 4. BTS has made it very clear there will be no Roster in 1.04 or in CM at all for the forseeable future. The earliest you may see a roster is in CM2, and they haven't decided on that yet. 5. I know the Tiger is getting its front turret adjusted, the only thing up in the air is by how much. Don't know about any other tanks. I'd personaly like to see some more adjustment made to the tank targeting crews problem as it is still there, although not as bad as before 1.03. Give us an ignore order or force crews to retreat off the board. The .50 Cal. does need some adjusting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rollstoy Posted August 10, 2000 Share Posted August 10, 2000 Unit type symbols as optional textures on the unit bases, please! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claymore Posted August 10, 2000 Author Share Posted August 10, 2000 David says that nothing we say matters, so please nobody else post to this thread Cheers - Claymore ------------------ he which maketh the first assault doth endanger himselfe most (sometimes) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dumbo Posted August 10, 2000 Share Posted August 10, 2000 I like all the suggestions (especially the movie) BUT I wouldnt want those keerazy BTS guys to spend too much time patching CM (which is pretty darn bug free IMHO) when CM2 needs to be developed so they can get paid again _dumbo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael emrys Posted August 10, 2000 Share Posted August 10, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sgt Steiner: 2. Less destructive hits on Tanks from indirect HE/Mtrs in general (maybe up amount/degree of suppression caused as counter balance)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This strikes me as sound, especially for the smaller mortars: Slightly less destruction and noticeably more suppression. I would also like to see the TacAI move units out of the beaten zone when shells start falling. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Posted August 10, 2000 Share Posted August 10, 2000 That's not what David is saying at all Clay. The topic title talks about fixes for a possible 1.04 patch. Add-ons such as rosters and convoy waypoints, are not fixes in any way shape or form. It's amazing how some people's thought processes are that they think complete design-altering changes can simply be thrown in as a "fix", or toss them in like there's no reason "not" to implement them. It's a simple re-hash of a post or two further down the forum. Sgt Steiner's post covers some good, do-able fixes. -Tiger [This message has been edited by Tiger (edited 08-10-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted August 10, 2000 Share Posted August 10, 2000 My question is do Tanks still target bailed crews when they are no threat? If they do, (and I think they do so at alarming rate) that should be looked at. the ONLY big thing I would like to see next is play via TCP/IP I'm wondering why no one is complaining about the effectivness of the German Counterpart of the US .50 cal? Is it modeled less effectively? The U.S. .50 cal is VERY effective, is it too effective? I don't know. Again Bailed crews seem to be targeted by Tanks when they represent no threat, which means if you advance your bailed crews as bait and attempt to flank the opposing enemy AFV with your armour or anti tank assets you will likely be acussed of using gamey tactics because it seems Tanks love to acquire bailed crews as "easy" targets. BUT There may not be anymore of these kinds of patches before TCP/IP arrives and I can live with that is the game is VERY much fun to play and VERY well balanced as it is. thanks -tom w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael emrys Posted August 10, 2000 Share Posted August 10, 2000 I don't know if I have a top five at the moment, but one thing that has been on my mind lately is allowing mortar carriers, and indeed all weapons capable of indirect fire to use that capability *provided* that they have not moved from the position they occupied at the beginning of the battle. You might consider applying that to the smaller onboard mortars also. At present they appear to be able to fire indirectly even after they have moved. (Somebody please correct me on this if I am mistaken, or if there is good reason for them to retain their indirect fire capabilitiy after they have moved.) Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Time Posted August 10, 2000 Share Posted August 10, 2000 vehicles seem to be a little overzealous in speeding towards their waypoints after seeing an extremely dangerous enemy unit aiming thier way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daveman Posted August 10, 2000 Share Posted August 10, 2000 Tiger: "That's not what David is saying at all Clay. The topic title talks about bug fixes for a possible 1.04 patch. Add-ons such as rosters and convoy waypoints, are not bug fixes in any way shape or form." Strictly speaking, the topic is "Rank the fixes", which I would take to include "tweaks" (small and not-so small) to gameplay as well as correcting bugs. As for the point in asking people to list their "top 5", there comes a point when any list of issues can get out of hand and you need to prioritize what to fix first. This can be *very* important when the "next" patch might be the last. I've participated in boards where designers have asked for, or otherwise appreciated such lists to help them decide what to focus on. I don't see the problem in doing so here. ------------------ "You know our standing orders. Out of ammo become a bunker, out of commission become a pillbox, out of time... become heroes." - The Beast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claymore Posted August 10, 2000 Author Share Posted August 10, 2000 Well Tiger what I was attempting to do (and you will notice the liberal spread of smilies) was render the disparate and disjointed collection of multiple threads into a single vote-for-it survey. Instead of searching for the this-and-that through history a summary thread was created. I am very much aware that software architectures can limit the deltas you can perform. Programing is part of what I do for a living. However, it is very informative for a person to go to one thread and see how people rank their desires and how it compares to others. Is BTS listening? Yes as much as any other thread. Will it influence them? No. Charles is the only programmer and a smart one. (Witness the results - CM) He will do just fine on his own. Do I care? No. I'm just curious what others think. Do others care? I don't know. Should we stop discussing? In my opinion no. cheers - Claymore ------------------ he which maketh the first assault doth endanger himselfe most (sometimes) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Posted August 10, 2000 Share Posted August 10, 2000 "However, it is very informative for a person to go to one thread and see how people rank their desires and how it compares to others." You weren't asking for desires you were asking for fixes for the next patch. No harm in it though, but when you try to back-door stuff you now call desires as fixes you should expect to get arguments. Alot of good patchable fixes are being listed, which is a good thing. Mean what you say, say what you mean -Tiger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TZEENCH Posted August 10, 2000 Share Posted August 10, 2000 1) Tcp/Ip (or were they just teasing) 2) Weapon accuracy a) .50 Cal accuracy and/or dammage with vrs light armour. Mortar accuracy. 3) Ai improvements (tac ai/stragic ai) a) Ai using HTs for transport & stuff Fog Of war 4) Forward Op Vechiles / Command Vechiles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claymore Posted August 10, 2000 Author Share Posted August 10, 2000 Hey Tiger, in a forum like this discussion is in a conversational style vein. Read the original subject line and you'll note that it includes the smiley. The original message is upfront as an entreatment for input from the other forum participants. The expected results of this request were clarified in my last post. Hey! maybe this thread will exceed my record. Does it count when you're posting about 15% of the total? cheers - Claymore ------------------ he which maketh the first assault doth endanger himselfe most (sometimes) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pascal DI FOLCO Posted August 10, 2000 Share Posted August 10, 2000 For me it is : patches/tweaks : 1. fixing the 50cal uncanny accuracy OR making German crews more courageous (so they remain in their AC/HT)... 2. tweaking the armour on a few tanks - Tiger...but this will have no end, someone will ever find mm of armor to adjust ! New features 1. "Follow" command - or stg allowing a group to move at the same speed. 2. TCP/IP play 3. Roster/OOB... 4. Movie recording Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted August 10, 2000 Share Posted August 10, 2000 Heh, rarther then speculate on what BTS may fix and starting the endless cycle of what fix may be a priority to me, but not to everyone else , I think Ill wait to see what BTS does fix and/or if anything. Regards, John Waters ------------- "Make way evil, I'm armed to the teeth and packing a hamster!" [This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 08-10-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TankDawg Posted August 10, 2000 Share Posted August 10, 2000 Hi, Great idea for FOW only to be in View 1. That would be very realistic. As it is, after each turn I hit Shift-C 4 times for size and scan the whole battlefield in view 4. Don't think my historical counterparts had that view. Good Thread. Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts