SS_KONIG Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 1. The abilty to buy a supply vehicle and re-supply your tanks etc with some of those requisition points.(thats realistic isn't it)? I hate games that allow repairs but re-supply is a must! 2. Line of sight should be blocked by trees & bushes, firing through such obsticles should have large penalties etc! 3. Smoke rounds and their effect on LOS as above. 4. Mortar teams made available. These are just a few ideas i think could improve this already GREAT game!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freeboy Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 supplies have no place in a tactical game imo smoke planned morters planned line of sight changes planned, now when we will see these , and house and structure intrance, reduced tank ability to see inf, a usable map editor etc will be seen. There per the Sneaksie started thread at least two patches and an add on planned.. wee will see what comes this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_KONIG Posted October 2, 2007 Author Share Posted October 2, 2007 If a supply vehicle is out of the question then at least tanks with turret or weapon damage should be able to drop ammo, in a similar way to the soldiers dropping combat gear! Allowing undamaged but out of ammo tanks to pick the discarded ammo up and re-arm! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShiftZ Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 You know the game is good almost as is. Of course there are a few areas where polishing is required but as I have read over the last two months on various threads all is in good hands. My only complaint is framrate. Is ToW using open GL? If it is BFC may have a cure for that one. Seems CM:SF uses open GL and from whats been researched out by some of the fourm members over there the game is hitting the cpu way to many times causing slowdown. I've been heavily into another sim and although it plays sweet it lacks the graphics of ToW. Can't wait till all of the detailing is done on ToW and it's rolled out for display. Salute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FinnN Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Well, when you consider that the big CMSF framerate increase in 1.04 has come from terrain LODs (very important in flight sims) and ToW is using a heavily modified IL2 engine I'm not so sure. FPS hits in ToW seem to come from things other than the graphics. It's quite a big admission for BFC to say that they didn't think that terrain LOD would yield improved framerates for a negligable change in overall quality - a glaring hole like that is probably down to the one-man-programming-team (Charles) that they have. I'm sure exchange of information on graphics routines could yield some results for both sides, but I wouldn't expect anything dramatic for ToW at least. Graphics-wise, at the moment CMSF has better 3D models (dramatically better in the case of infantry) and I prefer some of the textures. Apart from that ToW has either comparable or better graphics in just about everything else. In particular the models don't exhibit z-buffering problems (which are severe in CMSF) and the map doesn't float in space. Whilst CMSF terrain might be more complex than CMx1 terrain it doesn't really come close to matching all the stuff you have lying around the ToW battlefield. Take a look at the new ToW model screenshots and they're as good as if not better than the CMSF ones. In summary, I think ToW has better graphics and if they'd been done in a similar style to the CMSF ones they'd blow them away (ToW textures, like the IL2 ones, tend to be a bit more 'artistic'/'drawn' as opposed to the more 'photographic' style in CMSF). On the other side, CMSF has a wider range of things you can do in terms of orders and interaction with the environment and the behaviour of units is on a different level, never mind things like C&C, relative spotting etc. Although they're two very different games if there's ever a ToW2 I'd like to see some of those things influencing it from CMSF, not the graphics. Have fun Finn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freeboy Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 I thought the fps issue was related t othe multiple calcs when a lot of bullets and shells where flying around? Guess I was wrong but my medium system does great.. Dual core Amd fx60 lot sof memory etc decent graphics card Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GodfleshNL Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 A camera which works like the one in the "rome / medival - Total War" games...because operating the cam with mouse & hands at the same time to get a good angle / view kinda ruins the gameplay a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapaho Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 The camera control is just like driving in england and driving in france. Its different, you just have to get used to it. (I prefer france ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GodfleshNL Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 It has nothing to do with getting used to...it is a question of what is easier to do...operating the cam with one hand or with 2. I prefer 1...because it is easier / faster to get a good view of the action on the battlefield. The cam has allways been a "problem" with Battlefront games...hopefully it will be "fixed" this time around in a patch. p.s. I don't like the french anyways so...haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBR Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 Hmm I'd like a platoon structure. At least for tanks. The less micromanagement the better. Yes camera is better in Total War IIRC. Actually the best camera is the one for old MTW as freelook isnt screwed up as in M2TW. CBR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mastiff Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 ah how about a script for All Seeing Eye to look at this game, can get more hook ups on MP that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat_Tornado Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 How about a capture the Base game: Each side has a Base at the edges of the map, on which reeinforcement arrives from time to time for several times. The ability to use pioneers at the beginning of the game to create defensiv structure (sandbags, maybe trenches, wires and anti-Tank obstacles) in a limited number to defend the base whould be nice. Each side has to capture the enemy Base and to defend the own Base as main target. By adding Capture-Points on the map (bunkers, ammo-warehouses, airstrips, radiostations, trenches, bridges, villages) which give a bonus for reeinforcement when captured. Let's say airstrip gives ability to call airsupport, ammo-warehouse gives ammo reload for units walking by. Radiostations allow to call Mortar and Artillery support, bridges allow to use a fixed Artillery Gunpit to defend the bridge. The villages maybe fillup 50% of dead soldiers by new one to arriving Infantry. The battle may concentrate not only on one target to reach and gets more dynamic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manx Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Originally posted by Pat_Tornado: How about a capture the Base game: Each side has a Base at the edges of the map, on which reeinforcement arrives from time to time for several times. The ability to use pioneers at the beginning of the game to create defensiv structure (sandbags, maybe trenches, wires and anti-Tank obstacles) in a limited number to defend the base whould be nice. Each side has to capture the enemy Base and to defend the own Base as main target. By adding Capture-Points on the map (bunkers, ammo-warehouses, airstrips, radiostations, trenches, bridges, villages) which give a bonus for reeinforcement when captured. Let's say airstrip gives ability to call airsupport, ammo-warehouse gives ammo reload for units walking by. Radiostations allow to call Mortar and Artillery support, bridges allow to use a fixed Artillery Gunpit to defend the bridge. The villages maybe fillup 50% of dead soldiers by new one to arriving Infantry. The battle may concentrate not only on one target to reach and gets more dynamic. I've already played this game...it's called CoH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat_Tornado Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Whould it be wrong to combine ToW with features from other games? I think it whould be interesting to earn reeinforcement by certain logical conditions. Once all ToW missions are successful played at high difficult it's not really very much interesting to me in playing them once again, the AI behaviour stays the same, every time the mission gets played, the challenge is only once. Random changing priority of Capture-Points for AI could change the gameplay, make it more unpredictable after a new start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R33GZ Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 yeah yeah... we could introduce tiberium and some sort of machine to farm it and call the Game Command and Conquer...... Maybe we could add an option to build tank factorie too. please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat_Tornado Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 C'mon, whould be more interesting if you tell your ideas for improvement instead of just critisize! I'm sure, adding random AI priorities improves gameplay a lot, makes it more replayable having challenge and fun all the time. From the first time i played ToW i like it a lot,(i think it's the best game of its kind) but replaying missions again and again is not really challenging any more without modifications. Creating more and more missions the old style may only help for some time of action and fun but come to the same end when played again and again. An optical improvement to me whould be a first person view, allowing Inside-outside views of commander or gunner position of planes,tanks, vehicles, Artillery or gunpits. Im not very happy with the direct view camera half a meter above the selected unit (exept tank commander...). An adjustable "Tracking-View" to observe units at a constant distance whould be nice. Possibilites of taking cover in ToW are very rare. - Trees, bushes and high grass should grant some cover and reduce distance beeing spotted. - Adding more natural cover obstacles like earthholes, stones or rocks could help, fallen trees may stay on ground, slowing down infantry movement but grant cover when dig-in. Maybe some AI improvement: - Moving Infantry under enemy fire or at final waypoints automaticly take cover using existing bushes, trees, sandbags or trenches, behave like "first survive" and then fullfill orders. - Limiting spotting ability depending on unit type. Units should not have the ultimate "x-ray view". Still depending on Scout ability: - In general, units may be able to spot uncovered enemies let's say from 350m to approx. 500m with maximum scout ability. - Artillery may spot uncovered units from 750-1000m. - Sniper and Groupleaders having binoculars may spot enemy from 400-750m. - Tank Units should be able to have Commander in open or closed Hatch positon. Open positon for spoting 750-1000m (but low fire-cover of Commander), closed position for spoting 500-750m. Nice to have: - Infantry able to dig in defensive positions. - Artillery-impact crates, generating some more infantry cover. - Paratroopers on some missions (i really miss this feature). - Enterable bunkers with outsideview. - Pioneers able to build defensive meassurements, to lay and search mines, to destroy defensive obstacles, bunkers and bridges. - On-Map Mortar units, moveable. - Some different faces for units in 3D instead of "War of the clones". - Smokegrenades (i miss this a lot). - Machineguns like MG34 or alike, moveable by Infantry. - Beach Assault D-Day, having landing vehicles to drop infantry. I hope my english is acceptable! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manx Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 I personally hope that the ToW developers will aim more towards realism than having to "steal" gimmicks and concepts from other WWII RTS's. Sure, games like SHOWW2 and CoH are fun to play, but i think ToW can easily capture a market that those sort of games don't cater for, especially if they can attract the Close Combat, SPWAW and CM crowd, who predominately play those games because they strive for some sort of realism, however abstracted at times, that may be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nachinus Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 Amen to that, Manx! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoppelhopser Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 Good post Manx. Chasing the health bar hyper click customers is not the right way for this product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R33GZ Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 No Pat_Tornado, your is English is good... perfect actually. I agree with the direction of a few of your points, such as making infantry more worthwhile and useable and refining the spotting system currently used. But by far the most important thing I would have thought, would be to work out a system for a Quick Battle generator. As you have already said, the point to which the existing maps/battles are programmed with triggers means that they become predictable and boring very quickly. It was the Quick Battle generator that has given the CM series its longevity. My understanding is that this will be extremely hard to create because the game is based on a series of triggers? Anyway, Pat_Tornado, my apologies for being short, I just dont think there is any reason to cheapen TOW... it has the fundamentals of a brilliant game design, it just needs a bit of care in making it exactly that... a brilliant game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredqc Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 Hi all, i just bought the game last week.I was very happy to see the quality. I think its a great game, but it need some improvement. I will repeat some of you, but the difference is that i think some improvement are more essentials than others for the realism and the gameplay of the game. Must: - Buildings should be more interactive ( i know you are working on that ) - Better dynamic on line of sight ( obstacles like wood and easier to shoot at ennemies ) - Better use of cover ( buildings, bushes, trees, etc... ) Would be good: - Smoke, mortars, more units ( ss, fj and soviets paratroopers ), useful medics, HMG units ( .50, 12.7, mg42 ), Pioners. I think the camera works fine with the middle mouse button and better work on the playabitity ( Line of sight!! ) than the texture. Sorry for my not too good english and great game!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredqc Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 Sorry, last thing; a detail. The training line of sight mission is weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlapHappy Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 Does anyone think the infantry are too slow on scale? They seem sort of sluggish to me even when they are moving at max speed. I was able to figure out how to speed up movement rates for vehicles and infantry if anyone is interested in what values to tweak. You need to be able to use the Good Doctor's mod tool however..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manx Posted October 26, 2007 Share Posted October 26, 2007 1C have a fantastic track record of supporting their games long term and i'm optimistic that they will see TOW worthy of ploughing time and effort into. The original "IL2 Sturmovik" was a breath of fresh air when it came out and is has been steadily improved and expanded upon with the subsequent releases of "Forgotten Battles", "Pacific Fighters" and lately, the "IL2 1946" DVD (i bought them all). Your talking what must be 7 years of constant development in that series and it will soon be suceeded by "Storm of War: Battle of Britain". If they can do what they did for WWII air warfare and carry that into WWII ground combat we will all be in for a treat. Here's hoping! [ October 25, 2007, 08:12 PM: Message edited by: Manx ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Egon Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 ... infantry capable of mounting tanks would be a nice one, too. I think this was common practise esp. with the Red Army. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts