Pham911 Posted September 22, 2000 Share Posted September 22, 2000 I did a search for improved positions, and found 11 hits that told me nothing. I did a search for sandbags, and got 200 hits and I'd rather face your scorn than wade through 200 posts to find one bit of info. Why are improved positions not included as a purchase option for the defender? I was under the impression that they were not all that uncommon in the war, and it seems that a sandbaged AT gun would survive small arms fire much better than one in a foxhole(one can still shoot(though would be semi-blind), while the other can't because they have thier heads underground and can't manipulate the gun. If you just made roadblocks to work like large treefalls(in terms of cover), and allowed units to be deployed in setup inside the roadblock(to give it LOS, which would normally be blocked by the block, you'd solve all my problems as I could use those to simulate sandbagged guns and such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IPA Posted September 22, 2000 Share Posted September 22, 2000 I'm with you on this one. I guess the fact that the defending side automatically digs in is the way prepared positions are simulated in CM, which could include sand bagged positions (even though they're stated as foxholes), although this is not graphically illustrated. Maybe what you're looking for, is something more substantial such as field fortifications and entrenchment networks, but this would require a new terrain tile and I believe that BTS have already stated that they won't be making any new ones for CMBO. It would be a nice addition. IPA ------------------ "Surrender? Tell them to go to hell." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntelWeenie Posted September 22, 2000 Share Posted September 22, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pham911: Why are improved positions not included as a purchase option for the defender?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The defender automatically gets them when the attacker is "attacking" or "assaulting" in QB. No need to purchase what you already have for free. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted September 22, 2000 Share Posted September 22, 2000 Yup, you can assume your foxholes are sandbagged – actually modelling the sandbags would be tricky. Roadblocks don't actually seem to provide much cover. I tried to get a couple of squads to defend from a roadblock, and they kept running back to a foxhole from where they couldn't see the enemy. David ------------------ They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pham911 Posted September 22, 2000 Author Share Posted September 22, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: Yup, you can assume your foxholes are sandbagged – actually modelling the sandbags would be tricky. Roadblocks don't actually seem to provide much cover. I tried to get a couple of squads to defend from a roadblock, and they kept running back to a foxhole from where they couldn't see the enemy. David <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh. Now I'm even more confused. During the war not all foxholes were sandbagged, so if it's already figured in that the foxholes are fortified, then are normal, quickly dug foxholes used in the game at all? [Additional thought] Also, I wasn't looking for 3D sandbags, or even a graphical representation, just for it to say either "foxhole" or "improved foxhole" with a LOS check and have the protection improved with the sandbagged one. [This message has been edited by Pham911 (edited 09-22-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScoutPL Posted September 22, 2000 Share Posted September 22, 2000 Dude, you're thinking way to hard about this! I think the more I read an play the more I understand that CMBO is more of a "small unit action simulation" then a first person shooter or tank simulation type game. Which makes me love it more and more! This is a game where you make some generalizations in order to make game play faster/easier. You could get really picky about fortifications, if you wanted. Are they sandbags, cinderblock, concrete, steel reinforced dirt, slit trenches, foxholes with and with out overhead cover? But to give you and I a better playing experience some generalizations have been made in graphics and such. When it comes down to it, unless you're going to go into a terribly long and complicated numbers game, cover is cover. Take it or leave it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pham911 Posted September 22, 2000 Author Share Posted September 22, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ScoutPL: Dude, you're thinking way to hard about this! I think the more I read an play the more I understand that CMBO is more of a "small unit action simulation" then a first person shooter or tank simulation type game. Which makes me love it more and more! This is a game where you make some generalizations in order to make game play faster/easier. You could get really picky about fortifications, if you wanted. Are they sandbags, cinderblock, concrete, steel reinforced dirt, slit trenches, foxholes with and with out overhead cover? But to give you and I a better playing experience some generalizations have been made in graphics and such. When it comes down to it, unless you're going to go into a terribly long and complicated numbers game, cover is cover. Take it or leave it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's actually a pretty good response. Still, I'd like to see an generic improved position available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts