Bug list / ideas for improvements

[GoodGuy]

I bought the full version a week ago, so, after I've finished the German campaign, I'll list bugs and shortcomings I came across so far.

Windows XP Pro w/ SP3, 4 GB RAM, GeForce 7600 GT, AMD X4 940 Phenom, Realtek High Definition Audio 24-bit.

Bugs:

• 1) Savegame bug: The game tends to crash when saving a game or when loading a savegame multiple times.
  
• 2) The savegame is being damaged each time that occurs, resulting in total loss of actual game progress.
  
• 3) After reloading a proper savegame, the mission tends to crash at the very end of the mission (mission won), probably when trying to update/save the campaign progress.
  
• 4) During setup phase, the player can issue "Stance" orders (i.e. crouch, go prone, stand), but after the player has started the mission, his soldiers won't accept these orders:
  Example:
  Soldiers who had been placed in trenches automatically (when setup phase comes up) will stand in the trenches on mission start, exposing themselfs to enemy units with long range weapons. This happens if the soldiers don't detect the incoming units (i.e. tanks), due to their low scout abilities ("0"). I had losses right after the mission started that way - when the first German tanks appeared, and this occured in the American mission after Kasserine pass. The stance bug comes up on every map where the player can place units in trenches, though. If the player issues hold orders to soldiers in trenches during the setup phase (so that they don't move around and leave their position), they wouldn't crouch to protect themselfs, even if the stance was set to "crouch/duck". Each and every unit has to be "awakened" by issuing a move order, in order to make them go to the issued stance.
  
• 5) Tanks will rotate their turrets to let's say the left side (i.e. because they spotted infantry) although the player has issued a "don't fire"-order. This often leads to heavy losses in those cases, where the player wants the tanks' guns to point at enemy tanks (the bigger threat) straight ahead. Nothing will work to make a tank's gun point straight ahead. After the player issues a "rotate turret"-order to fix that and then a move order again, the gun will rotate again and point at infantry to the left, if the particular tank has no LOS to the enemy tank. Frustrating issue.
  
• 6) Infantry often won't move, i.e. when under mortar/arty fire even if running would save their lifes and even if a hold order (which should disable the independent movement), along with a "rush/crouch" order, had been issued. In these cases, infantry has to be "talked" into moving to a given position, as if they'd be "deaf".
  
• 7) Starting options.exe would not start the config tool on my computer. I had to open the files game.ini and settings.ini in notepad to turn off smart pause. Why does options.exe not work on my computer? I did not install NET 2.0 when I installed the game, but even after installing NET manually, I can't open options.exe. What's going on there?
  
• 8) Friendly Artillery guns (I.e. American 105-mm howitzers) won't receive new ammunition after the mission Kasserine pass. Is that a bug or a feature?. I chose 3 howitzers for the following mission, but the howitzers had no AT rounds, and around 35 + 43 HE rounds only, pretty much the same amount left during the last mission, I guess.
  
• 9) The game crashes to desktop once in a while, for me - this mostly happens after I finished 1 mission and while playing the following mission, sometimes even in the middle of the very first mission when starting a TOW2 session.
  

Shortcomings/features that could be improved:

• 1) Smart Pause should be turned off by default. It's extremely annoying and inexpierenced users who can't find this option on the ingame config screen, may be frustrated/confused.
  
• 2) Icons for ordinary soldiers (who don't have special abilities like: machine gunner, AT soldier, sniper, officer, driver) are way too small. It's a real hassle to select these soldiers from a distance, in the heat of a battle. The IGN reviewer found it to be quite frustrating, too.
  
• 3) Some tanks/AT guns will switch back to AP round when there are no visible targets, but some won't. Did I overlook an option there? It's desirable to have AP rounds loaded if there's no action, so that the units aren't like sitting ducks firing "paint balls" (HE rounds) at enemy tanks when enemy tanks show up.
  
• 4) Friendly soldiers tend to run into their own grenades when a "charge location" order had been issued, where they usually reach their own grenades right in the second when they explode.
  
• 5) Infantry will stop in their tracks and fire at enemy units if the player didn't issue a "hold fire" order, and ALTHOUGH the player issued a hold-order - to avoid independent movement. That's one of the behaviours (maybe a bug, not sure) that turn the game into a click-fest, where the player often forgets to take back the "hold fire"-order, turning the units in question into defenseless cannon fodder. In my books, this happens when such units are being bombarded, so it may be even a bug.
  
• 6) Long range rifle and machine gun fire is extremely lethal. While it would be somewhat realistic if MG-34 machine guns would be used (they had a trigger with 2 functions: the trigger had a spindle in the middle, so when the upper part was pulled the gun fired in full auto-mode, while the lower part could be used to fire single rounds, which could be used to "snipe" - as in firing somewhat accurate single rounds only, as the MG-34, just like the MG-42 {which could be fired in full-auto only}, had a very long range), the MG-42 could be fired in full-auto mode only and its accuracy was reduced, in order to improve RPM and durability of the barrel. The bullet spread of the MG-42 above 300-500 meters was really bad.
  
• 7) Tank rounds kill soldiers even if they just travel over their heads, with a distance of around 1 meter (estimation) or even more. I doubt that this would be lethal.
  
• 8) HE rounds should have an effect on tanks' tracks (if the tank has no armor skirts), as even bundled handgrenades or AT-infantry grenades could damage tracks. There are videos on youtube where you can see M1 Abrams tanks in Iraq that had lost a track after road mines (usually aircraft bombs buried next to the road, or pipe bombs) detonated.
  

Well, the most annoying bug is the savegame-bug, as it mostly comes up once you reload a savegame 1 or 2 times, after that the memory/game is borked.

I'm not going to buy a Battlefront game BEFORE one or two patches had been released already, ever again. Quality assurance seems to be a major issue with Battlefront programming teams. I paid for a product which contains major bugs and where I can't use substantial features (save function, options.exe). In Germany, this would qualify for a refund. The game is a big step forward, compared to TOW1, but the game's current state is anything than satisfying.

@Sneaksie: Do you've got all the issues I've listed on your "radar"? Are they going to be fixed?

[himmelstoss]

very accurate post about issues of the game, thx for that! after playing for quite a while i must 110% aggree on the things listed.

i still love the game though, dont get me wrong. but i surely hope this stuff can be taken care of with a couple of patches soon.

immer weiter,

himmelstoss

[Prattboy9394]

Nice list. Yes, the running into one's own frag is a reliable source of comedy in an otherwise authentic battle experience.

My gripes:

Motorcycles - utterly useless. MG rarely fires.

Building protection - either too much at times or too little. example, a barrage of 20mm/40mm rounds ought to knock a wall down but units inside are nearly invulnerable to them. At other times, single high calibre HE knocks the whole structure down. combat footage will show that buildings tend to hold up even if a wall goes.

Firing out of buildings - LOS is screwed. Certain times a enemy unit would be 30 meters away, directly in front of a window with a soldier, but no LOS? AI does not seem to position itself well or even initiate hand-to-hand combat immediately.

Assaulting buildings - inability to throw nades thru a window really takes the fun from close combat. I have gotten lucky throwing them in doorways though.

Scripting - AI needs to call mass retreat when it is hopeless. AI in trenches are dead ducks. Often towards the end of the battle, when all is lost, they wait to be slaughtered.

[G B Scurlock]

I think the game is a little too leathal. Soldiers are killed too fast. I would think actually 80% are just wounded and are therfore a casualty but not Killed every time. I hope this can be toned down a bit.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

I think the game is way too lethal. If 1C/BFC would tone down the lethality a lot, I would buy it. I think that TOW and TOW2 have many great points, and a lot of potential, but the high lethality and the spotting ability of tanks just frustrates me.

[Tartari]

I don't agree, the lethality seems rather normal! Maybe the reason is that you are playing at veteran level? I always play at regular level...

Funny, I was thinking at the contrary that the guns are rather a little bit inaccurate , specially the 88!(maybe it was'nt so accurate as the legend says!)

[GoodGuy]

Building protection - either too much at times or too little. example, a barrage of 20mm/40mm rounds ought to knock a wall down but units inside are nearly invulnerable to them. At other times, single high calibre HE knocks the whole structure down. Combat footage will show that buildings tend to hold up even if a wall goes.

Very good point. 40mm Bofors would shred a building to pieces, and even a 20mm KwK gun (i.e. in lightly armored German Scout cars, which are present in the game) would turn a building into swiss cheese. But even a tank shell may rip out half of a building's walls only, with the rest of the structure being able to hold up. Indeed.

On the other hand, houses on the African theatre (often consisting of clay bricks or even just clay) weren't exactly as solid as European buildings, right? So, guns with smaller calibres (even below 40mm) should really show some effect there.

Re: Scripting. Still, I could "accept" some of the behaviours, means I would wait for an expansion or patch to improve AI behaviour, but the lack of stability and the savegame-bug is something I can't accept/tolerate. I like the game, but it has to be playable and the savegame function has to work, actually, as people don't want to play a given mission over and over just because the game's acting up.

[GoodGuy]

Another idea for improvement:

• In most if not all RTS games, the player's units will only move ONCE he issues a move/attack order, hold will be always on.
  
  
• Many of these games don't even have a hold button. There are some games where tanks will just move a bit, i.e. when they come under fire, and they will bring the front (armor) to bear, in order to have maximum protection, or they will move a bit backwards when they come under mortar/arty fire - these behaviours reflect sophisticated AI code, which is not present in TOW1/2.
  
  
• The hold order in TOW2 should be set on automatically, for all units, so that the player doesn't have to issue a ton of hold orders. If the player wants his units to switch to "search/follow and destroy" he could then let his unit act independently, by releasing the hold order.
  
  
• Also, people who are new to this BF game (and not aware of the fact that you have to issue a "hold" order to each and every unit) will be scared away when they see their own tanks commencing a bold charge towards a bunch of enemy tanks or AT guns, when playing the demo, without them having issued a corresponding order. They will think that the AI-code is either faulty/borked or non-existent. That's pretty counterproductive - from a marketing POV and should be changed: In the demo AND the retail version.

Just in case someone (Moon? ) steps up to say that the info can be found in the manual.... it's not about "RTFM" but about 1C acting against the industry standard, which had been established when the very first successful RTS came out ("Dune 2" on the Commodore AMIGA, from Westwood, commonly called the "mother" of all RTS games, which was released in 1992 and was the predecessor of the very first "Command and Conquer" for PC). There were RTS games like DarkReign (1997) that had a sophisticated AI code, where you could send out your units on S+D missions, or on "harrass"- or recon-missions, but even this high-tech game (regarding AI) had a traditional HOLD behaviour/function.

[Mongo]

I don't agree with putting all units on "hold".

I also play Take Command, and unless you take command of your units, they act with some independence, just as would be experienced in battle. It gives a greater feeling of reality, where units don't always do what you want, when you want.

I want to continue to see the same unit independence in this game, unless I take command of them deliberately.

[Vanitas]

I bought the full version a week ago, so, after I've finished the German campaign, I'll list bugs and shortcomings I came across so far.

Windows XP Pro w/ SP3, 4 GB RAM, GeForce 7600 GT, AMD X4 940 Phenom, Realtek High Definition Audio 24-bit.

Bugs:

• 1) Savegame bug: The game tends to crash when saving a game or when loading a savegame multiple times.
  
• 2) The savegame is being damaged each time that occurs, resulting in total loss of actual game progress.
  
• 3) After reloading a proper savegame, the mission tends to crash at the very end of the mission (mission won), probably when trying to update/save the campaign progress.
  
• 4) During setup phase, the player can issue "Stance" orders (i.e. crouch, go prone, stand), but after the player has started the mission, his soldiers won't accept these orders:
  Example:
  Soldiers who had been placed in trenches automatically (when setup phase comes up) will stand in the trenches on mission start, exposing themselfs to enemy units with long range weapons. This happens if the soldiers don't detect the incoming units (i.e. tanks), due to their low scout abilities ("0"). I had losses right after the mission started that way - when the first German tanks appeared, and this occured in the American mission after Kasserine pass. The stance bug comes up on every map where the player can place units in trenches, though. If the player issues hold orders to soldiers in trenches during the setup phase (so that they don't move around and leave their position), they wouldn't crouch to protect themselfs, even if the stance was set to "crouch/duck". Each and every unit has to be "awakened" by issuing a move order, in order to make them go to the issued stance.
  
• 5) Tanks will rotate their turrets to let's say the left side (i.e. because they spotted infantry) although the player has issued a "don't fire"-order. This often leads to heavy losses in those cases, where the player wants the tanks' guns to point at enemy tanks (the bigger threat) straight ahead. Nothing will work to make a tank's gun point straight ahead. After the player issues a "rotate turret"-order to fix that and then a move order again, the gun will rotate again and point at infantry to the left, if the particular tank has no LOS to the enemy tank. Frustrating issue.
  
• 6) Infantry often won't move, i.e. when under mortar/arty fire even if running would save their lifes and even if a hold order (which should disable the independent movement), along with a "rush/crouch" order, had been issued. In these cases, infantry has to be "talked" into moving to a given position, as if they'd be "deaf".
  
• 7) Starting options.exe would not start the config tool on my computer. I had to open the files game.ini and settings.ini in notepad to turn off smart pause. Why does options.exe not work on my computer? I did not install NET 2.0 when I installed the game, but even after installing NET manually, I can't open options.exe. What's going on there?
  
• 8) Friendly Artillery guns (I.e. American 105-mm howitzers) won't receive new ammunition after the mission Kasserine pass. Is that a bug or a feature?. I chose 3 howitzers for the following mission, but the howitzers had no AT rounds, and around 35 + 43 HE rounds only, pretty much the same amount left during the last mission, I guess.
  
• 9) The game crashes to desktop once in a while, for me - this mostly happens after I finished 1 mission and while playing the following mission, sometimes even in the middle of the very first mission when starting a TOW2 session.
  

Shortcomings/features that could be improved:

• 1) Smart Pause should be turned off by default. It's extremely annoying and inexpierenced users who can't find this option on the ingame config screen, may be frustrated/confused.
  
• 2) Icons for ordinary soldiers (who don't have special abilities like: machine gunner, AT soldier, sniper, officer, driver) are way too small. It's a real hassle to select these soldiers from a distance, in the heat of a battle. The IGN reviewer found it to be quite frustrating, too.
  
• 3) Some tanks/AT guns will switch back to AP round when there are no visible targets, but some won't. Did I overlook an option there? It's desirable to have AP rounds loaded if there's no action, so that the units aren't like sitting ducks firing "paint balls" (HE rounds) at enemy tanks when enemy tanks show up.
  
• 4) Friendly soldiers tend to run into their own grenades when a "charge location" order had been issued, where they usually reach their own grenades right in the second when they explode.
  
• 5) Infantry will stop in their tracks and fire at enemy units if the player didn't issue a "hold fire" order, and ALTHOUGH the player issued a hold-order - to avoid independent movement. That's one of the behaviours (maybe a bug, not sure) that turn the game into a click-fest, where the player often forgets to take back the "hold fire"-order, turning the units in question into defenseless cannon fodder. In my books, this happens when such units are being bombarded, so it may be even a bug.
  
• 6) Long range rifle and machine gun fire is extremely lethal. While it would be somewhat realistic if MG-34 machine guns would be used (they had a trigger with 2 functions: the trigger had a spindle in the middle, so when the upper part was pulled the gun fired in full auto-mode, while the lower part could be used to fire single rounds, which could be used to "snipe" - as in firing somewhat accurate single rounds only, as the MG-34, just like the MG-42 {which could be fired in full-auto only}, had a very long range), the MG-42 could be fired in full-auto mode only and its accuracy was reduced, in order to improve RPM and durability of the barrel. The bullet spread of the MG-42 above 300-500 meters was really bad.
  
• 7) Tank rounds kill soldiers even if they just travel over their heads, with a distance of around 1 meter (estimation) or even more. I doubt that this would be lethal.
  
• 8) HE rounds should have an effect on tanks' tracks (if the tank has no armor skirts), as even bundled handgrenades or AT-infantry grenades could damage tracks. There are videos on youtube where you can see M1 Abrams tanks in Iraq that had lost a track after road mines (usually aircraft bombs buried next to the road, or pipe bombs) detonated.
  

Well, the most annoying bug is the savegame-bug, as it mostly comes up once you reload a savegame 1 or 2 times, after that the memory/game is borked.

I'm not going to buy a Battlefront game BEFORE one or two patches had been released already, ever again. Quality assurance seems to be a major issue with Battlefront programming teams. I paid for a product which contains major bugs and where I can't use substantial features (save function, options.exe). In Germany, this would qualify for a refund. The game is a big step forward, compared to TOW1, but the game's current state is anything than satisfying.

@Sneaksie: Do you've got all the issues I've listed on your "radar"? Are they going to be fixed?

I have to agree 100% with this comment because I experience the same kind of problems. What about it, battlefront? Are we going to see a refund or a patch?

[Field Marshal Blücher]

I don't agree, the lethality seems rather normal! Maybe the reason is that you are playing at veteran level? I always play at regular level...

Funny, I was thinking at the contrary that the guns are rather a little bit inaccurate , specially the 88!(maybe it was'nt so accurate as the legend says!)

Rather normal compared to what?

Actual lethality, especially from infantry small arms, is very low. People just don't get hit as much in real life as they do in the game. However, this thread is not about this topic, so I'll just leave it at that.

[Tartari]

compared to my real war experience!

[Field Marshal Blücher]

Can't tell if you're serious or not . . .

I know there are lots of posters here who do have real military experience. I can't say I'm one of them, but I have read a lot. Most books I've read say it's astonishing how much lead is expended in order to kill one soldier. Granted, a lot of this is never intended to actually hit, and is expended more for suppressive fire, but still . . .

If you do have actual military experience I'd be happy to be proved wrong.

[Tartari]

no, it was not a joke, I was killed many a time!

It will be nice to open a new discussion about the lethality in Tunisian front, specially regarding the bloody road to Tunis, Longstop Hill, Djebel Maiana...

[Field Marshal Blücher]

We may want to do that.

We should definitely get out of this thread though, as we are way OT now.

[GoodGuy]

Most books I've read say it's astonishing how much lead is expended in order to kill one soldier. Granted, a lot of this is never intended to actually hit, and is expended more for suppressive fire, but still . . .

Very good point, you hit the nail there.

Example: After the US had switched to using the M16 Assault Rifle in Vietnam, they figured that, with the deployment of drafted soldiers, units often spent all their ammunition prematurely when being attacked by VietCong or NVA units (fear, trigger-happy) without actually hitting a sufficient number of targets, leaving the particular units in dangerous situations - with high chances of being overrun by the enemy.

The Army countered this by abolishing the full auto-mode, where pulling the trigger would then fire 3 rounds only. This countered ammo-waste successfully, as 3 rounds are usually enough to either stop (kill), or slow down the enemy (as he has to search for cover), or wound him. As soldiers complained about the lack of stopping power provided by the 5.56mm cartridges, this put the focus back on the platoons' elements which were actually supposed to provide suppressive fire: machine gunners, or fire(support) teams with rifles (M14 or even M16), or soldiers equipped with M79 grenade launchers - which had a range of up to 150 meters.

[Mongo]

"Icons for ordinary soldiers (who don't have special abilities like: machine gunner, AT soldier, sniper, officer, driver) are way too small. It's a real hassle to select these soldiers from a distance, in the heat of a battle".

I don't agree with this statement.

The smaller icons are a great improvement over the party balloon icons in TOW1, which really detracts from the immersion. They are far too big. Looks like a battlefield full of smilies.

I think the small triangular icon for an infantryman is a good size and effective for gameplay. I don't have any trouble using it.

Please don't change it.

However, the icons for vehicle crews remain too large when you zoom out. Midway through a battle, the icons for the crews of disabled/destroyed vehicles tend to dominate the battlefield image and are reminiscent of the party balloon battle image of TOW1.

They aren't so important that their icon should be larger than the icon for an infantryman.

Perhaps you could simplify the icon by making it a small dot or a square, to diffentiate them from infantrymen. The icon doesn't have to be a simplified image to help players understand that its for a crewman.

To respond to people who like playing with large coloured party balloons or smilies, perhaps you could have an option to select icon size, and even colour.

I changed the icon colour for the allies in TOW1 from green to blue and I thought it was a big improvement.

[GoodGuy]

"Icons for ordinary soldiers (who don't have special abilities like: machine gunner, AT soldier, sniper, officer, driver) are way too small. It's a real hassle to select these soldiers from a distance, in the heat of a battle".

I don't agree with this statement.

The smaller icons are a great improvement over the party balloon icons in TOW1, which really detracts from the immersion. They are far too big. Looks like a battlefield full of smilies.

...[] To respond to people who like playing with large coloured party balloons or smilies, perhaps you could have an option to select icon size, and even colour. .... []

Maybe I should clarify/specify my statement:

I, for one, don't need a massive amount of "smilies" (like you say) on the screen, so you're targeting the wrong one with your balloon statement.

I'm rather used to RTS that don't have any icons, at all. But in these games the "hitbox" is way bigger, so that selecting a unit is less finicky, means: selecting a unit takes way less precision, which is very convenient in the heat of a battle.

The IGN reviewer highlighted the very same issue, and it doesn't matter whether he usually focuses on mass-compatible products or not, he has seen and tested quite an amount of games during his course - most likely, so I wouldn't rule out his oppinion there.

I'm playing computer games since 1989 (starting on an AMIGA), and I can tell you that I've seen 'em all, so I tend to agree with him.

With the current approach (gfx, options, functions) the TOW2 devs have to accept that their product is being judged not only by the quality of the gfx, but by the quality of the interface and quality of the engine and its functions, too, which means that the whole package should meet the industry standard, at least.

Also, in TOW2, if you use the marquee function to select multiple units, units/soldiers inside the marquee frame (usually in the corners) often won't be selected/added, although they're within the marquee area. This leads to situations where the user has to adjust the cam multiple times, which is cumbersome and taking away the fun/immersion.

So, this is rather about the hitbox than the icons.

Still, the actual existing (bigger) icons, indicating specialists and/or vehicles/crews, would make up for the current troublesome hitbox properties, halfway, if used on the soldiers as well (maybe with half the size). If I could pick, I'd rather have the hitbox code changed than the actual icons, though.

Right now, let's say you move the cam down and you want to select a soldier, you might just select a tank behind the next hill if you're in a hurry, as icons don't use LOS nor does the engine compute obstacles, so all icons show up in the cam's FOV.

I agree with you, that the cluttered icons are somewhat disturbing. The current situation, with the (amount of) unit displays is anything than well-defined.

Your statement regarding disabled vehicles made me develop another idea:

Disabled vehicles should loose their icon once one of their crew members decided to bail out. If I am not mistaken, once one crew member bails, without the rest of the crew following, the rest of the crew is dead/disabled. These tanks won't fire anymore anyways, so I don't see why

• 1) their icons should keep showing up, as they ceased to pose a threat,
  
• 2) why friendly and enemy AI should keep firing at them (pumping round after round into a guideless or defenseless vehicle, or.... empty hull, if you will).

You could say now, that tank crews in RL won't have such fancy icons, and that it's realistic that the friendly AI keeps pounding such enemy tanks, but I'd say that tank crews in RL would quickly figure that an enemy tank stopped to re-adjust the gun or rotate its turret, so they would focus on actual threats, instead of knocked out tanks.

[GoodGuy]

An additional thought regarding the hitbox (to select units): Play "Ground Control" (3D game, released in 2000 -> you can download this for free from Vivendi right now) or "Command and Conquer" (2D, 1995) and you'll know what I mean. Selecting units works like a charm in both games, and these are really old games.

1C got it down regarding realistic weapon sounds and regarding penetration simulation for some tanks' guns (at least for high calibres), but they obviously lack experience with implementing RTS standard features.

In case you'd say that you don't want to have a (mass-compatible uber-commercial) TOW game, I'd reply that TOW2 already carries 85% of the RTS elements (if not more) of a comparable RTS game from a major company,

• less some sophisticated AI code, which in turn, can be found in major titles these days,
• plus a realistic approach regarding lethality (*cough ok except for small arms), penetration and explosions (well halfway), which is rare, admittedly.

That said, you might see that there's room for improvement.

Now, don't get me wrong, I like the game, but it has shortcomings, and the release version is really buggy, the game usually crashes after reloading the very same savegame for the second time, on my end, for example.

[Prattboy9394]

Smartpause/damage bug:

Many of you seem to hate the feature. I actually find it useful, especially when I set units to HOLD/no fire, which removes their autonomy. For the patch, I hope the camera will pan smoothly to the unit, instead of an abrupt jump. Also, and this is probably not possible, a replay of 2 seconds before and after unit death, would be so awesome. That will let us manage all our units without losing a beat.

Not only is it ugly, its buggy. One current issue with Smartpause is when clicking on a disabled vehicle that Smartpause already notified off, it still activates to reminding me that it is disabled. Second bug (which may not be related) is that when a tread gets knocked off a tank, the Smartpause messages says engine damaged.

Wishlist:

We should have options to rearm captured vehicles between battles and to repair a tread during. Not 100% realistic but certainly nice for folks that like traditional RTSs.

[GoodGuy]

Smartpause/damage bug:

Wishlist:

We should have options to rearm captured vehicles between battles and to repair a tread during. Not 100% realistic but certainly nice for folks that like traditional RTSs.

I think you meant to say "repair a tread during the battle". Good idea.

Historically, experienced crews (German) could exchange a tank's track within 30 minutes (i.e. German Tiger/Kingtiger tanks switching from the smaller tracks which were used for shipment by train to the tracks used in combat), in non-combat situations. Replacing single elements of a combat track was possible though, and was even carried out in the field, on some occasions, especially if a tank-retriever wasn't available.

Also, in case enemy equipment was captured, at least the Russians and the Germans used to repair and incorporate this equipment into their forces wherever possible, like the Russians, who were using Panzer IV tanks and some Panther tanks, and the Germans who were using French tanks and Russian T-34 tanks, and a myriad of other captured weaponry.

Captured equipment even sometimes received upgrades, i.e. new guns in order to be able to fire the particular side's standard ammunition.

I don't see why captured equipment in the game keeps showing up (on the OOB-screen) with the actual damage that was present at the point when it had been captured, even if it had been captured several missions ago (days, weeks? in terms of campaign-length).

[Mongo]

The point I was trying to make earlier is that, at least for me, the size and graphics of the crewman icon is too large compared to that for the infantryman (which I like as is).

Here's a screenshot of what I am trying to convey.

At this point in the battle, enemy crewmen are less important to me than enemy infantrymen, but their icon is much larger than the icon of the attacking infantrymen.

I would be happier if the icon for a crewman was smaller and simplified, such as a square or dot, simiar in size to the infantryman icon.

What is a "hitbox"?

I don't play many RTS, but instead tend towards simulations, such as Pacific Fighters/IL2, and Take Command. OK, I'm still hooked on Hidden & Dangerous 2 for a third person shooter.

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k35/jetsetsam/grab_2009_05_11_18_15_54_640tga_000.jpg

[Mongo]

Oops. Too big. Like the icons for crewmen.

How about this one?

[R33GZ]

bollox! Looks like ToW2 has the exact same set of problems with AI and scripting that ToW has... good to see they really listen to their customers :-/

From the 4 pages Ive just read through, I dont think Ill be wasting another $45 ($90 NZD) on 1C's RTS games. Unfortunate, cause they sure know how to make them look good... if only they could make the game play enjoyable.

thanks for all the posts gents... you saved me the pain and expense of another flop.

[GoodGuy]

The point I was trying to make earlier is that, at least for me, the size and graphics of the crewman icon is too large compared to that for the infantryman (which I like as is).

Yes, I know, i got your initial explanation.

What is a "hitbox"?

The old term "hitbox" originally referred to an invisible "box" or shape used in 3D games like DukeNukem 3D (which contained 3-dimensional rooms but was using hand-drawn 2D-sprites to display the characters), where this hitbox was a pre-defined shape (not neccessarily exactly the same shape as the sprite) tied to each character. Depending on where a bullet or a rocket hit, a hit would either

a) be lethal or

just reduce the character's health level.

With advanced 3D games and well-defined 3D-characters, developers started to program sophisticated physics-engines, computing effects and paths of projectiles, but I guess hitboxes are still being used, to define/create certain effects, like defining hit-zones (a soldier's leg, arm, stomach, etc). A hitbox may be also used for soldiers in TOW2, i.e. for the effect where a soldier dies when a shell travels closely over his head, but I'm not a programmer, so I don't know if actual games still use them.

The hitbox in Medal of Honour: Pacific Assault was extremely buggy for example, as the player could pump an entire Thompson MP mag into the japanese AI soldiers, without scoring ANY substantial hit in close combat (strafing in front of them, in fact), the bullets would just not register, although this game was using a pretty good version of the Unreal Tournament engine.

Now, even in RTS games with halfway realistic physics, like in TOW2, a hitbox may still define the different zones that can be damaged (gun/turret, tracks, hull) or destroyed, but this box may also define the area where a mouse click would highlight/select a particular unit. And that's the part where TOW2 is really less user-friendly, as selecting units can be quite finicky, even if you zoom in - trying to select small units on the move is even harder. It takes really precise pointing and clicking in order to select the units, and this doesn't deal with users who may have sore eyes or a damaged mouse, but with something that's in the code/under the hood.

Unlike in TOW2, selecting units works like a charm in other games, no matter what zoom-level is involved. The hitbox would also define how accurate a user's marquee frame has to be to actually select a given unit. In TOW2, if you try to marquee 8 units standing in a horizontal line, the units standing at the far ends of the line (one unit in the left and one in the bottom right corner of the marquee frame) may not get selected, which is quite surprising, as this is pretty much the opposite you may expect from small units that are hard to select otherwise (due to their small hitboxes?).

These are the 2 things I was talking about (the IGN reviewer as well, btw).

OK, I'm still hooked on Hidden & Dangerous 2 for a third person shooter.

Dang, how old is that game? lol... That's from 2003, right? I used to play H&D 1, well... like what, 10 years ago, though (released 1999 i think).