Opinions of 1.05?

[jhdeerslayer]

I'm back to playing again. Thanks BFC.

[Thomm]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Sounds like close range targeting of those Bradleys? IIRC the RPG-7 has a minimum arming distance (50m??), so it's possible they are in too close.

According to:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/rpg-7.pdf

... arming distance is 5 m (page 5).

It is very well possible that the Bradley was even closer than those 5 meters. I shall take this into account in future ambushes.

After all, a more distant RPG team engaged the Bradley quickly and decisively, so most likely all is well there!

BUT: the Bradley should reverse out of grenade range, and the crew should not expose themselves ... in theory.

Best regards,

Thomm

[c3k]

BF.C,

v1.05 has me playing this game. THAT is quite an achievement.

Is there more tweaking needed? Absolutely. But right now CMSFv1.05 is a playable game.

Thanks.

1.06,

Ken

[Dirtweasle]

So what about the Stryers not reacting to those T-72s in plain view? After that detail was reported I have not seen a response. Did I miss something?

I get it that if a vehicle next to yours goes KABOOM! the choices are difficult to program, but if the Stryker can (and does) see the tank should it not do somefink about it that makes sense? Maybe pop smoke and reverse, bolt for better cover?

[JohnO]

Dirtweasle, don't you have the game? As for your question I haven't seen that type of a reaction.

[Sgt Joch]

very nice, another evolutionary patch, night lighting is cool. I still have a few issues with pathfinding, but the game seems to be on the right "path".

[Stirling]

Originally posted by Dirtweasle:

So what about the Stryers not reacting to those T-72s in plain view? After that detail was reported I have not seen a response. Did I miss something?

Vehicles in CMx1 were excellent at evading superior foes. That AI routine is still completely absent in CMSF, or the vehicles are just ridiculously blind. Either way, it needs fixing.

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by JohnO:

Dirtweasle, don't you have the game? As for your question I haven't seen that type of a reaction.

Yep, I have it. Have not had a chance to DL 1.05 yet though.

My take is a problem was pointed out, and paraphrasing here, BFC said it was a design decision and then when new data was provided there was no further response.

On my Stryker exammple, after two Strykers went up, the rest all had spotted the T-72. They still just sat there.

BFC said they did not program in survival against indirect threats. This is different.

[SgtMuhammed]

It is interesting that light armor used to scamper like mice in CMx1. I don't doubt that it is different in the new engine but I WOULD like to know why.

[Dirtweasle]

I was just thinking about that too Sgt.

My recollection is for instance M3 halftracks running in the face of enemy armor. Sometimes they ran into trouble doing it, sometimes the did OK, but I sure do recall something happening during the 1 minute turn to aid their survival.

Now, it's even worse because now if the enemy sees you they fire and when they fire they hit 99.9995% of the time.

[Battlefront.com]

SgtMuhammed,

t is interesting that light armor used to scamper like mice in CMx1. I don't doubt that it is different in the new engine but I WOULD like to know why.

In large part Relative Spotting. When one unit saw a King Tiger, all units saw a King Tiger. That means as soon as they got into LOS they instantly knew they were in LOS, which meant they reacted. Probably too quickly too.

In CMx2 you can have a T-72 in "plain sight" but still not see it for any number of reasons. This greatly reduces the "scamper like mice" behavior that was seen in CMx1, which was inherently unrealistic. If you recall, this is what we call Borg behavior.

Individual vehicles SHOULD be popping smoke, at the very least. A couple of testers have poked into this since the original question was raised and there doesn't seem to be a problem with it, so I can only guess that the situation Ditrweasle mentioned has to do with Relative Spotting OR some other factor that he isn't mentioning (because he doesn't know its relevant), like Morale or Experience.

Steve

[SgtMuhammed]

That is why I used to love vehicles with the very fast turret. Chasing half tracks with a Tiger was often a chore if they had any cover.

[SgtMuhammed]

Thanks Steve,

I think there has to be some sort of happy medium. You are going to have some sort of reaction in addition to smoke.

[Dirtweasle]

Here is what I was referring to.

Originally posted by thewood:

On my Stryker exammple, after two Strykers went up, the rest all had spotted the T-72. They still just sat there.

I am going to move the 72 closer when it open fires and see what happens, they are only 400m away now.

I am also going to try having the T-72 pause between shots and see if having longer to react makes a difference.

He says that the unit spotted the T-72.

Was he wrong? Was it really that he - the user - spotted them? Could be. ...but that's not what he says. I am assuming that like me he understands the difference and by selecting the unit could tell that the Stryker "saw" the T-72.

He went on to write -

I drove the 72 to within 150m. It got its track nailed by a 40mm heat round that immobilized it. It did not fire a shot. All Strykers with .50s openned up at around 350m. Never once deplyed smoke, retreated, got nervous, nothing. At 150m I had the 72 open up. After two kills, one Stryker got rattled. The rest just sat there until death do them part. I did notice one odd thing, the .50 armed Strykers all stopped firing at 72 when it went immobile at 150m. Never openned up again.

Weird replay issues though. Ammo counts got pretty screwed up on the 40mm Strykers. Also tracer animations stoped replaying on all Stryker weapons on about the third turn in replay.

I could have driven the 72 right next to the Strykers and they would have kept plunking away with no other reaction. Even the infantry scattered around the Strykers never seemed to be very concerned about the carnage around them

Not sure how a flawed understanding of relative spotting is the issue here when the Strykers were banging away with Ma Deuce would seem t indicate they spotted the tanks, no?

['Card]

I wonder if this thing with the Strykers has something to do with which side you're playing on?

I was trying out a scenario as the Syrians last night, congested urban area, I had some T-72's parked waiting for targets, and the Strykers were sure as hell reacting. They'd come blundering around a corner, see my tanks waiting there, and pretty much do everything but **** their pants. Smoke was popping, they were backing up, I even saw one try to drop its ramp and dump the troops inside before I blew it up. (didn't work - but it was a nice try)

The point being that I've never seen that kind of reaction when I was the one running the Strykers. I've seen them pop smoke and back up a few times, but never anything consistent and nothing to the extent of what the blue guys were doing last night.

[Battlefront.com]

Dirtweasle,

Was he wrong? Was it really that he - the user - spotted them? Could be. ...but that's not what he says. I am assuming that like me he understands the difference and by selecting the unit could tell that the Stryker "saw" the T-72.

After years and years of seeing people describe things, I'm still leery of trying to figure out what happened. More often than not the person doing the describing honestly leaves out something that is important to understanding what happened. In other cases the person is axe grinding and deliberately leaves things out because they have an agenda. I'm definitely not saying that Thewood is deliberately leaving out info (I absolutely don't think that's the case), I'm just emphasizing that text descriptions of complex things like this are almost never good enough for me to comment on specifically. Generically is about all I can do.

Based on Thewood's description I don't know why the Strykers didn't at least pop smoke when they spotted the T-72. Could be a bug, could be that there is a logical explanation for it. I can't say.

As for the other behaviors, we do have plans to have vehicles respond better to direct threats. Expect something for v1.07. We had hoped to have made improvements by v1.05, but we were distracted by other issues and didn't touch this one yet.

Steve

[thewood]

I've never posted a file. How do I do it. I am not proud of this scenario. It was originally built to test infantry vs. Stryker action. I took out the infantry and put in a 72. It also the same scenario where the T72 heads of 45 deg from the only waypoint about 400m in front of it. Maybe I can kill two birds with one scenario.

It was just a flat map with some trees in the center played WEGO Hotseat. I have never played this one RT.

[Lethaface]

A Very (Good) Playable game Made Much More Playable.

Thats my opinion 'bout 1.05

PS i'm dutch so don't take this as a 'hostile' comment! Thats not allowed for you non-dutchmen, as I have read...

waiting for 1.06 low wall fix though, cant even properly play one of the new scenario's

Apart from that I didn't see any other bugs I can remember and aren't posted b4 Ach... I guess it's easy to be pleased as a dutchmen...

Happy Christmas@BFC and everyone else

[yapma]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by yapma:

2. the improved hunt command for infantry

.

improved how?

Hunt works fine as it is now, it should be called movement to contact, but when hunting the reaction to incoming fire is not near instantaneous. </font>

[thewood]

Just noticed for the first time that you can't use the face command when target arc is active. Am I doing something wrong or is this true?

clarification:

this is for turreted vehicles. I have a tank acred to the side but want to turn the front slightly to another threat. Couldn't do it.

[Battlefront.com]

Lethaface,

Glad you're enjoying it and we'll get v1.06 out very soon.

Yapma,

heh.. I meant to correct TomW about that. I read what you wrote and understood it correctly

Thewood,

I don't normally like people emailing me stuff because I am on dialup, but if you want to send me that scenario please do. steve@battlefront.com.

As for Facing, that is correct. It's always been that way because Face is a Combat Command and you can only have one active at a given time. Turreted vehicles can be a pain sometimes because they are the only thing that can face in two directions at once. We didn't want to complicate the UI by having two separate types of Face commands for the odd circumstances where you would need both. What you can do is cancel the Target Arc, use Face, then issue another Target Arc. It's not perfect, but it should work.

Steve

[thewood]

The main problem with the facing command issue is that in WEGO, as soon as I cancel the arc command, 9 times out of 10, the tank rotates its turrent to the other target. I have not tried chaining them, but even then, for a short time you lose target lock on the first target.

It may take awhile to get the email to you. The saves are each 2-3M in size and there are 7. Do the math.

I also never understood why face was a combat command, I would always think of it as a movement command.

[JohnO]

Steve beat me to it. Going back to sleep now

[thewood]

Steve, email sent

[Thomm]

Wow!

For the first time ever I gave my Red squads in Al Huqf only one final waypoint each and a Quick move order. Then I watched them take up their positions and I have to say I could not have plotted better paths.

Well done, Charles!

Best regards,

Thomm