massimorocca Posted November 19, 2002 Share Posted November 19, 2002 Having played a role in the second betatest crew of the game and beeing heavily involved in playtesting of some of the hardest scenarios created here at Boot&Tracks, I'm biased in favour of BTS and its quick and smart skillness accpeting suggestion from testers. Anyway after some months of gaming I'm thinking that the sneaking routine isn't exactly something that I could fully appreciate. I will like a new command "covering" that tell to the Ai to made a row of sneak and fast leaps toward a spot of our choice, "abstracted" like the Advance abstracted the moving with covering. An order that could overrule the autosneak if the units isn't panicked or routed. I think nevertheless that if it can be done with the current engine the guys at BTS had or will have done it by sure. But, this little criticism is my TASTE only and cannot prevent me to play and enjoy endlessly a game that is MORE than a major improvement over CMBO. Massimo “Mad Italian” Rocca Playtester at http://www.militarygameronline.com/boots_tracks/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doodlebug Posted November 19, 2002 Share Posted November 19, 2002 Originally posted by massimorocca: Having played a role in the second betatest crew of the game and beeing heavily involved in playtesting of some of the hardest scenarios created here at Boot&Tracks, I'm biased in favour of BTS and its quick and smart skillness accpeting suggestion from testers. Anyway after some months of gaming I'm thinking that the sneaking routine isn't exactly something that I could fully appreciate. I will like a new command "covering" that tell to the Ai to made a row of sneak and fast leaps toward a spot of our choice, "abstracted" like the Advance abstracted the moving with covering. An order that could overrule the autosneak if the units isn't panicked or routed. I think nevertheless that if it can be done with the current engine the guys at BTS had or will have done it by sure. But, this little criticism is my TASTE only and cannot prevent me to play and enjoy endlessly a game that is MORE than a major improvement over CMBO. Massimo “Mad Italian” Rocca Playtester at http://www.militarygameronline.com/boots_tracks/I think the problem is not one of unpanicked units. If it's unpanicked you can get in and change orders. If the new orders are good ones then the unit will obey them and hopefully survive. If you give bad orders then the unit will not obey them or suffer losses because of them. The problem is the panicked unit which you cannot order to do anything. I think a wider variety of responses and cover destinations is the answer to the uncontrolable panic sneak. Incidentally I value your input as a Beta tester. You probably have more insight into the game than most people. And yes the game even as it stands is better in most areas than CMBO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nippy Posted November 19, 2002 Share Posted November 19, 2002 Have you already played the Brückenkopf (Bridgehead?) scenario? You mean "The Bridgeheads"? If so I have two words for you: "Human Wave" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt Kernow Posted November 19, 2002 Author Share Posted November 19, 2002 Doodle bug. Im posting a reply to you seperately to schoener because unlike him you are capable of reasoned arguement. I quite clearly refer to those saying they are refusing to play this game till the patch comes out. I will restate here that those experiencing the refered to problems so much that they refuse to play the game or in fact find it in anyway impeding there enjoyment must be doing something wrong in there gameplay. This was the thrust of my initial post. I merely restated my initial points because a certain person (you know who) was flaming people in this thread for not talking about what he thought this thread was about. As far as battlefront are concerned and patches, please read both the posts from battlefront on the first page of this thread. I dont think I couldnt ask for a better validation of my initial post. So refering back to the patch in some way is not really a valid way forward for you. Amongst many other relevant things battlefront said " The truth is that there is some room for tweaking, but we feel that the people who are expecting 1.01 to fix the "problems" they see with 1.00 will be disapointed. Nearly all of the people that have voiced concern/complaints thus far look like they are having problems because they are getting their troops into situations they never should get into in the first place. Look, I respect your opinion, and your right to it. I dont think you express it in a whiney fashion and thats good. Consensus is dull and of course there is room for improvemenent in the infantry model, me like others who have posted here dont want BFC to change it to much as we like it prety much the way it is at the moment. I am not a fanboy of BFC, if I felt something was genuinely wrong I would be first to comment on it. I just dont think there is and am happy with there product patched or unpatched. [ November 19, 2002, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: Cpt Kernow ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt Kernow Posted November 19, 2002 Author Share Posted November 19, 2002 Schoerner You are a little boy that lives in a huge house. This huge house has a big big kitchen. This kitchen is full of black kettles. When not in this house you live in a greenhouse made of glass.These are full of stones that you like to throw. Forum visitors please observe: In response to a post of mine Schoener tries to imply I am childish for trying to restate my opinions about what this thread (that I started) was about. Here are his comments refering to me: This is sounding like from a child crying: THIS IS MY THREAD! Forum visitor please observe some of Schoeners comments to others that he thinks are not posting in relation to what he thinks this thread is about. Cpt Kernow, i think you're missing the point. Or did you answer the problems i described? No funnily i didnt because I was talking about something different and am not obliged to answer your posts. Later we have I didn't receive not ONE single answer dealing with the infantry behaviour in the Brückenkopf (Bridgehead) scenario Some better answer him soon coz he'll scream and scream till he's sick till he does Later still Your last post comes back to the topic of this thread. If this isnt bad enough, battlefront itself decide to post. Their post quite correctly is in harmony of what the thread is about, it adds to the discusion and develops the thread, however by this point Schoerner quite selfishly is insisting that every post should relate to his post and what he thinks this thread is about , (he's still screaming and is quite close to being sick) so he says to Steve of battlefront: @Steve: I can't understand, why you are ignoring the topic, too which should read " Steve why are you ignoring my post, my questions and needs are so more pressing,important and urgent than that of anyone else." Schoerner I wont call you a child. However I do think you are stuck in the ID phase of development. You also accuse me of insulting you personaly and when challenged totally fail to come up with any examples. (I might be insulting you in this post but now the gloves are off)Then say I am flaming. Lets say I was flaming you are hardly in a position to criticise me for that are you. Forum visitor please observe some more choice comments of Schroener. Are these not flames? Is anyone praising/defending CMBB's inf-unit-behaviour here, capable of reading FIRST? and And what if i tell you, that you have no clue about tactics and movements under fire, and therefore you don't recognize it? and Because either you're a child closing it's eyes or a liar. Hmm nice well observed arguements there Schroener. Anyway as this next quote will demonstrate, its good to see your not dogmatic. It's a matter of FACTS, that units are under certain conditions behaving really unrealistically I should follow the widom of Andreas who said: I have made a habit out of not responding to Herr Schoerner's posts But when ducks sit, shoot them. Oh bye the way I am allready a member of the blitz. I think you make an excellent ambadasor for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doodlebug Posted November 19, 2002 Share Posted November 19, 2002 Hi Cap'n. You are right of course to refer back to the comments by BTS particularily the quote you pulled out. I have tried very hard to hope that it doesn't really mean what it says But alas as you point out it probably is not good news for players who want or expect radical changes. I don't want radical changes. I would settle for a clarification on this panic sneak thing. If I played CMBB like CMBO I would expect to get bad results. So I don't. No more running with masses of men at objectives because you know they weren't going to get hit by the MG's effectively. I have honestly tried setting up fire bases to cover the next planned move forward. I've set up covered arcs with MG's. But there always comes a point that you have to advance into open ground. I send a couple of squads( perhaps on opposite flanks to split fire) on advance orders and they either make it or they don't and panic. I have seen squads broken and routed later but never immediately. I'd settle for my panicked squads staying still or sneaking or running or any combination of the above but not always sneaking. I have yet to see anything but sneak. Is this a default response can anyone tell me? I'm refering to good quality troops in my battles vets and better. I haven't tried worse stuff yet because I figure the results could only be worse. So I suppose it boils down to just a few questions for me. 1. Do panicked units do something other than sneak? 2. Is sneak the default result of panic? 3. And lastly I do not claim to be infallible. If it is my tactics what am I doing wrong? I would rather play this game than not. I'm just baffled by this one aspect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schoerner Posted November 19, 2002 Share Posted November 19, 2002 Tschernow, don't impute that i want another infantry model! Where did i say that? Are you really not capable to understand what we were talking about? If your style of discussion is to start a thread for flaming people and then wriggling like an eel and using imputations, without touching the sense of the complaints, then it gives a good insight on your character in general. BTW: Steve did also in no way respond to the complaints about the AI's auto-sneak - he also used the tactical-topic and a strange comparison with the Sherman shoots Tiger complaints, to get around it - obviously BTS doesn't want to touch this topic, while the Sherman vs. tiger complaints can be easily explained. But ofcourse no one can explain sneaking over open terrain torwards HMG-positions when cover is close and therefore i guess BTS is avoiding the discussion about it and useful idiots like you are welcome to distract from the complaints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted November 19, 2002 Share Posted November 19, 2002 Doodlebug, If that was the case why are BTS tweaking the model in the patch? The fact that they are prepared to tweak things indicates there is something amiss. Yes, but as I said I doubt very much that the loudest complainers, the ones calling this a "MAJOR PROBLEM" and saying they don't play CMBB because of it, are *not* going to see these tweaks as anything but a drop in their bucket. All simulations have areas where they can be improved around the edges, and that is all that we are talking about here. The core is fine and therefore anybody thinking it isn't won't be happy with the patch. Now, for the larger debate about the debate I have started up a new thread. And because of that, I am closing this one up. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted November 19, 2002 Share Posted November 19, 2002 obviously BTS doesn't want to touch this topic,No Schoerner... it is because I have answered these issues in great detail many times before. I am VERY tired of re-explaining things to people who do NOT want to hear what I have to say. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts