An example of Artillery in Action

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

Are you nuts, thats the last thing you do with them, you've undoubtedly played more games of CM than I have, but I rarely if ever put or saw ATG's set up in the open.

then why would you put the T-72 in the open? if you are thinking about road marches then i would say a D-30 towed by a truck is a damn lot easier target than a T-72.

getting a D-30 into a house and setting it up for firing is not an easy task. for a T-72 it is trivial. same goes for most other ambush positions. a D-30 will get wasted by any weapon and it doesn't offer any cover for the crew. a T-72 in ambush position can survive at least 90% of the weapons of the battlefield, while it can kill 99% of them. its only realistic threat is a M1 or a huge bomb. Javelin teams, Bradleys etc have cloze to zero chances for succesfully engaging a T-72 properly set up in an ambush position. and of course a T-72 is able to change firing positions in seconds after it has engaged the enemy. not only does a T-72 pack a lot more firepower than a D-30, it has considerably higher chances to survive the fight to see another day.

Lots of people do, most of Africa and still a fair bit of Asia. The US and Western Europe don't, because they can afford better and emphasis mobile warfare.[/qb]

Russians and Chinese do as well. modern Russian ATG is a good piece and used for classical pak-front duties.

Even if they are'nt in the front line, they will still be pressed in to service in an emergency, like I don't know, say YOUR COUNTRY BEING INVADED.

you need to consider the battlefield as a whole. e.g. Russians have capacity to defend their pak-fronts against enemy surveillance and indirect assets, and they have terrain that is suitable for use of pak-fronts. for Syrians it's better to use ATGMs carried by light infantry.

[Peter Cairns]

Steve,

It's been asked why heavy crew served weapons are such a hassle for us. Well, most have a crew of at least 5. That means we have to come up with 5 sets of animations that are not needed anywhere else. Worse, it is doubtful that we can use the same ones from one weapon to another. Therefore, we don't get any economy for putting more in, we get the opposite.

Good answer, I am happy with that, as most people would be, so why all the deep tactical nonsense.

To be honest you can always tell when you are on the back foot or rattled, because you go from three line answers to three page ones....

Peter.

[Battlefront.com]

Peter,

Good answer, I am happy with that, as most people would be, so why all the deep tactical nonsense.

Because it isn't tactical nonsense. If the ATG was an important element for CM:SF we'd have to put it in, delays be damned. Since you were equating ATGs with tanks and ATGMs, and saying the game would fall apart without it, well... obviously I think that is a wee bit off.

To be honest you can always tell when you are on the back foot or rattled, because you go from three line answers to three page ones....

Yup, when a couple of lines of logic can't straighten someone out, I gotta sit the person down and explain things the long way. It has nothing to do with being rattled. For example, look at the first two posts I made in this thread. Longer than three lines, eh?

Steve

[CobaltTiger]

Reading this thread, it occurs to me that some of the things I see Steve made to answer for on these forums I can't imagine any other game developer being grilled over. For any other game there would be a FAQ stickied and one of the questions would be "Q: Are ATGs going to be in the game? A: No." and the conversation would be over. There certainly wouldn't be a dev on the forums debating the issue with us.

That conversations like this one even happen just goes to show how ridiculously spoiled we all are by CMx1 and by BFC in general.

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

From our perspective, if the 100mm ATG is really only good for launching ATGMs, then there is no point in having it. We already have ATGM teams Sure, sure... I know there are differences, but we have to be realistic about what we can get into the game in a reasonable amonut of time. We're already a year into overtime.

Steve

IMO I think ATGs have a place on the modern battlefield in a defensive role.

They would have to be well hidden and well covered, but if that could be achived and they were supported and had a good crew then they could be deadly.

The T-12 like tanks has many many different versions.

Some have good optics, computer assisted firing, gun stabilization and IR sights.

Those from a location described above could be very very tricky.

Their 100mm shells also come in lots of different versions and some of the newer ones could be pretty deadly.

Bradleys and Strykers would have no chance against them and M1s would have to be careful.

From the front the shell has no chances but a flank or rear hit could easily destory a tank.

So while I see your point.

I do think they should be a high priority for future game installments assuming this things sell pretty well for you guys

I would also LOVE to see you guys take a crack at the 125mm 2A45 ATG

I think that guns with modern shells could have a chance of punching through the front armour of a Abrams.

Chances would be low, but I think it could do it.

Even rounds that didn't would do some damage and ring the bell of the crew pretty good.

Plus it can fire Refleks ATGMs

If im still Minister of Syrian Military Information :cool: at that points maybe I can have a tiny chance of influincing what goes into future modules.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

i for one hope that developers use the required time for something else. for example what types of mines have been added into the game so far? has it been confirmed that RRs and ZU-23s are in? ZSU-23-4? what about Toyota pickup mounts? roadblocks? ...

[L.Tankersley]

Re: unit icons

Just wondering if there's a reason why you're using a diamond icon for blue/friendly forces, and a circle icon for red/hostile forces, since that's the opposite of standard (e.g. MIL-STD-2525) usage?

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by L.Tankersley:

Re: unit icons

Just wondering if there's a reason why you're using a diamond icon for blue/friendly forces, and a circle icon for red/hostile forces, since that's the opposite of standard (e.g. MIL-STD-2525) usage?

Hi L. Tankersley,

Many ideas were suggested for those icons, including a version very close to NATO conventionnal symbols. It was ruled out for a variety of reasons. As for the diamond/circle standard, [EDIT: 'tis now fixed]

Cheers

[ December 15, 2006, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

[Bil Hardenberger]

If you are looking for better accuracy the red icons should have the diamond shape while friendly (blue) should be round.

Looks very interesting, can't wait to see a movie of the gameplay, or better yet the game itself.

Bil

[Bil Hardenberger]

Great minds think alike I guess... guess I falied to read the entire thread before I posted

[Battlefront.com]

Well, funny you should mention that. Diamonds and circles were not chosen by accident They really should be the other way around. For the life of me I can't remember why they are the way they are at the moment. We kinda got used to them and forgot about it! I'll see about getting that fixed.

Steve

[L.Tankersley]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

They really should be the other way around. For the life of me I can't remember why they are the way they are at the moment.

"It looks cool that way" is an acceptable answer, too.

Haven't really had time to be following the development recently, but from a quick glance here it's looking pretty cool. Looking forward to the release!

Regards,

[Battlefront.com]

Hi Leland,

"It looks cool that way" is an acceptable answer, too.

I think "we're fixing it" is a much better answer, so that's the answer you're going to have live with

Steve

[Peter Cairns]

Steve,

In multi player sceanrios where you have say four US players ( 3 platoon, plus Coy Co), will there be a way to see what artillery missions your co players are calling, and how will the system handle multiple requests.

Will it be first come first served or will missions be scrubed for higher authority or priority.

Equally if you happen to call in fire on one of your team mates, will you get VP penalties ( I assume if you have a team each player would get an individual score rather than just the whole team)

Will you get a target indicator that shows where and when friendly support will arrive, even if you didn't initiate it, or will it be up to players to keep each other up to date and coordinate these things.

I'd hate to see unrealistic amounts of friendly fire, not to mention someone just doing it for a laugh.

Peter.

[YankeeDog]

No multi-multi player in CM:SF, so your question is moot.

I believe BFC is hoping to get this feature in to a later release. Not sure if that means w/ a module of CM:SF, or CMx2:WWII. . .

[hellfish]

I hope to God that multi-multi player makes it into CMSF at least as a module/upgrade.

[Battlefront.com]

Yeah, these sorts of CoPlay issues have been kept in mind as we designed the game, but have no practical relevance to the game right now. That means we don't really have an answer at this time

We'll have to wait and see what becomes of CoPlay. It is such a huge undertaking. Peter's questions show you a few of the reasons why. It's not just about getting x number of people connected at one time, which is in and of itself a lot of work.

Steve

[Peter Cairns]

Steve,

Not really knowing the us ( or anyone elses for that matter) support system very well, I am absolutely no help.

Although I'd think being alerted to colleges fire request and perhaps needing them okayed by the highest ranking player, would be worth considering.

Also some visual representation on the map of when and where they are due to land might be worth considering, even if it is a toggle option.

It's probably a fair bit off but I think it's worth people batting round ideas now, you never know someone might well come up with an elegant solution.

Peter.

[Battlefront.com]

Peter,

It's probably a fair bit off but I think it's worth people batting round ideas now, you never know someone might well come up with an elegant solution.

We can do that next year

Steve

[japinard]

Sorry if this has been asked. But is there ground deformation from artillery blasts?

[Battlefront.com]

Yup! You can see one if you look closely at the first page. Look under where the explosion in front of the building is and you can see the crater it formed.

Steve

[japinard]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Yup! You can see one if you look closely at the first page. Look under where the explosion in front of the building is and you can see the crater it formed.

Steve

Yea

[Cpl Steiner]

A couple of questions.

1) In the final screenshot we can see two soldiers looking out of hatches at the back of each Stryker. Can they shoot their weapons if a target appears?

2) The spotting round exploded very close to a telegraph pole but it doesn't appear to have been damaged. Can these so called "flavour" models be damaged or destroyed?

[Battlefront.com]

Cpl Steiner,

1) In the final screenshot we can see two soldiers looking out of hatches at the back of each Stryker. Can they shoot their weapons if a target appears?

Yup, that's why they are up there risking their virtual necks

2) The spotting round exploded very close to a telegraph pole but it doesn't appear to have been damaged. Can these so called "flavour" models be damaged or destroyed?

Yes they can be damaged, though I'm 99% sure that hasn't been added yet.

Steve