Lt Bull Posted November 12, 2006 Share Posted November 12, 2006 I was posting early on when news of ToW was released discussing some features that I found surprising they were omitted eg. no infantry in buildings. It seems that BFC have spent longer preparing this game (or at least a demo) that I originally thought. Seems like they are implememnting more changes than perhaps originally predicted. Anyways, I am interested to know if there have been any changes/developments in the way infantry cover was going to be treated. From what I originally understood, unlike CM, infantry won't be able to strictly classified as occupying any kind of terrain for cover/concealment purposes. I am wondering if the ToW battlefield for infantry is kind of like being on a billiard table with tree with cover being gained from physically sheltering behind individual tree trunks, walls, mounds of dirt etc rather than just the abstract treatment like in CM. Effectively, is infantry always going to be considerd to be occupying "open ground", and any cover it gest is just what happens to be inbetween it and the enemy (eg. a tree trunk)? Bull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sebastian Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 Originally posted by Lt Bull: I am wondering if the ToW battlefield for infantry is kind of like being on a billiard table with tree with cover being gained from physically sheltering behind individual tree trunks, walls, mounds of dirt etc rather than just the abstract treatment like in CM. On the one hand it would be good, if cover would not be abstract, but displayed and simulated individually. On the other this means: More cover -> more CPU time. This dependency leads to unrealistic maps with very little cover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Bull Posted November 14, 2006 Author Share Posted November 14, 2006 What I don't want to see is visually misleading terrain that shows individual tress, bushes, grass, wheatfields etc (because they visually look more cool/realistic than a flat desolate map) but actually have no affect at all on the game as far as cover and concealment goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sneaksie Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 I have an impression that soldiers go where you tell them and can crawl away under fire. They don't find cover themselves as in CC it seems, though it may be i just didn't noticed. Tanks play far more major role and most time you're occupied with them. But the first Allies mission (Normandy) is completely crazy. You're supposed to take over the village full of Germans (including 2 Pz4's) with paratroops. I've played it once and germans pursued my poor guys in wheatfield and whiped them out, reinforcements came in and germans kick their butt too. I've managed to immobilize one tank and destroyed another with bazookas, but it was bloodbath and my paras were overrun by infantry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
criss Posted November 30, 2006 Share Posted November 30, 2006 With the Vid and cpu power we have today there should realy be no prob adding more cover ? I know everyone has nt got the uber system , but even most mid range systems have huge ammounts of power . I would nt expect huge ammounts of cover , but there must be useable cover for infantry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts