Pandur Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 here you go, since the release of CMSF i wait for a cover armor arc i dont think i need to explain the "why" and "how" the game could benefit from it. everyone should see how usefull they where in CMx1. so please i have given up hope for a CAA in the syrian setting, is there a chance for it in the WWII titles again? maybe for Normandy? thanks, 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdstrike Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Yes, please. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
costard Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 How about shell selection? AP up the spout - unlikely to be used on squishies, etc. Micromanaging hell, batman.:eek: Armor arcs, fer sure. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 "Holy high-explosive, Batman!" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Cover Armor Arc might make more sense in a WWII setting. In modern war the armor threat tends to be the least of your problems. A T55 will barely scratch the paint of your Abrams from 1000m while that distant Kornet-carrying infantryman can ruin your whole day. Should CMSF instead institute a 'Cover ATGM Arc' for modern war? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Cover Armor Arc might make more sense in a WWII setting. In modern war the armor threat tends to be the least of your problems. A T55 will barely scratch the paint of your Abrams from 1000m while that distant Kornet-carrying infantryman can ruin your whole day. Should CMSF instead institute a 'Cover ATGM Arc' for modern war? I think a "fire at what can hurt me" arc would be most appropriate. That would cover enemy tanks and assorted ATGM owners. Keep in mind, however, that the covered arcs in CMx1 always allowed to fire back at somebody who was firing at you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pandur Posted May 20, 2009 Author Share Posted May 20, 2009 In modern war the armor threat tends to be the least of your problems well hm, i would say this radicaly changes when we arive at CMSF2 symetrical modern conflict. just becouse there is a asymetrical conflict fought in the game wont mean all the normal cover armor arc behaviours should be switched around i guess. after all even the syrians can come up with a monkey T90 wich is verry adequat as tank for the syrians. mostly CAA will benefit the units wich can tank no punishment and/or are weak and so need a more strict set of fire control to "only" shoot on things of youre choosen becouse they either reload slow, see nothing, or are soft(ATGM-BRDMs or humans) and die mostly short after beeing sportted like RPG or Jav teams and the like. a abrams does not really care if there are just T55 1974 around. he shoots em up and other stuff next to that. anyways, i still think the CAA is, as it is unaltered, a verry handy tool to control the behaviour of youre units, same as the regular cover arc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pandur Posted May 22, 2009 Author Share Posted May 22, 2009 bump any official word on this please? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pandur Posted January 4, 2010 Author Share Posted January 4, 2010 bump; so, several month passed by. no sight of a cover armor arc. what gives? dont tell me it is on the list but its not important enough!? there are XX changes in patches so far that have no real use when compared to a CAA! now with normandy around the corner i hope this is back for WWII, any news on this one? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanzfeld Posted January 4, 2010 Share Posted January 4, 2010 Steve has not been answering me either... http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=89833 Don't know what we did wrong... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted January 4, 2010 Share Posted January 4, 2010 You should only start worrying after the tenth bump. Best regards, Thomm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wengart Posted January 4, 2010 Share Posted January 4, 2010 A T55 will barely scratch the paint of your Abrams from 1000m while that distant Kornet-carrying infantryman can ruin your whole day. Should CMSF instead institute a 'Cover ATGM Arc' for modern war? A CAA would still be nice. Nothings worse than having your well placed RPG team open up on a dismounted blufor squad.:mad: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vinnart Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 My biggest wish is that they bring back the quick 180 degree functions from CMx1. One was the max range with a 180 degree, and the other was 180 degree that you could extend to the depth you want. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pandur Posted January 5, 2010 Author Share Posted January 5, 2010 yea the "Ctrl" or "Shift" button to modify the cover arc to 180° is badly missing too but in the first place there needs to be a cover armor arc. i wonder why this was not done at the time they coded the other cover arc. now it comes to my mind that the UI is possibly screwed up to the point it can not take an additional command. i can not remember now as i use the absolute button layout and never look down to where the commands are displayed, but is there any empty space in the UI section the cover arc is in? if there are all 9 slots filled on that page maybe thats why we got no CAA!? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 The request has been duly noted and is going to happen at some point. However, I don't know when that will be. AI has to be written to get this to work correctly, which is why we haven't put it in yet. Back in CMBB days it took a long time to get the balance of factors to work correctly with each other. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pandur Posted January 13, 2010 Author Share Posted January 13, 2010 AI has to be written to get this to work correctly, which is why we haven't put it in yet. well thats good news i suppose so its a matter of time to get the "priorities" right for the TAC AI. and i thought that the CAA is the easier one of the two arcs. ...and is going to happen at some point. that is bad news i guess, as it wont be ready for normandy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 that is bad news i guess, as it wont be ready for normandy. That's not really what he said, though. When Steve says that he cannot promise the inclusion of something, eg. 3D moustaches on soldiers, it means that even if it might make it in, it is one of those thousands of little things waiting for implementation so it's hard to estimate when it'll get done. It might make it, but then again it's not such a core feature that it would warrant delaying the game on its own. Meanwhile if Steve says that something will be in the game, eg. noses, it means that it is already done in some form or it is so important that the game absolutely won't be done until that feature is in. From Steve's post I would also deduct that even if the feature won't make it to Normandy 1.0, there is a good chance of seeing it in one of the later modules (and associated updates for those who don't buy the modules). ...now I really want to have 3D moustaches instead of a flat texture on soldier's faces! BFC fix or do sumfink!!!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 ...now I really want to have 3D moustaches instead of a flat texture on soldier's faces! BFC fix or do sumfink!!!! I should think the inclusion of acne scars would have a higher priority since they would be far more common than facial hair during the WW II era. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanzfeld Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 Acne grog... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 I should think the inclusion of acne scars would have a higher priority since they would be far more common than facial hair during the WW II era. Michael Are you saying that all the British officers grew moustache due to acne? The sappers must have had very acute cases then... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pandur Posted January 14, 2010 Author Share Posted January 14, 2010 From Steve's post I would also deduct that even if the feature won't make it to Normandy 1.0, there is a good chance of seeing it in one of the later modules (and associated updates for those who don't buy the modules). its funny what different things can be deducted from different persons from one and the same post. for me, what i quoted above sounds like the same i wrote but with the "cup half full" view of things. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 Quote: Originally Posted by Michael Emrys Are you saying that all the British officers grew moustache due to acne? The sappers must have had very acute cases then... How did you get that from what I wrote? Or have you just decided to make things up and attribute them to me? :confused: Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 its funny what different things can be deducted from different persons from one and the same post. I think you should both stop deducting and try deducing. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 How did you get that from what I wrote? Or have you just decided to make things up and attribute them to me? :confused: Michael I think your irony meter is low on batteries. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 I think you should both stop deducting and try deducing. Michael Oops spoke too soon, seems you changed batteries afterall. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.