Some Shock Force questions that need answering please..

[phil stanbridge]

A couple of questions. I'm playing through the Marines campaign for about the third time but there are some underlying problems that I'd like resolved.

#1 Artillery/Air strikes - Hows does the supply of artillery/air strikes work in the campaign? If you use your entire supply in one mission, how does this correlate to the next? Same with regards air support. If you save some rounds, will this have a positive effect in the following missions or is it not calculated at all. Reason being, at the beginning of some missions I have an 'allocation' of artillery, but it is empty! I don't understand this. Why provide it if I can't use it. Do you have to successfully complete a mission in order to receive full allocation next time round?

#2, Replacements - how do replacements work in the campaigns? Again is it purely down to the design or is it based on progress in the campaign. Obviously attrition takes its toll in the campaign, and I've reached a point where I could really do with some replacements, but there are none coming. Do you have the same task force throughout/ is resupply not even catered for?

I'm sure I'll add to this list shortly.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

It's up to the designer to determine whether or not you get resupplied, which can be done on a battle forr battle basis, AFAIK. The briefings tend to give you a clue as to what the ammo situation re: artillery is. If it says "don't expect to resupplied" you may not get more ammo for the mission after that, though at a later date you might perhaps again receive some. Due to it's nature air support tends to be "use it or lose it" in any case.

The winning or losing has no specific effect on the ammo situation next scenario. Win/loss may have an effect on which scenario will be next. It depends on the next scenario as to what your ammo replacement will be. So it could be that one or the other scenario has you getting your ammo replenished.

Some artillery might be a one off allocation, others might be part of your core units. And even then core units may drop in and out of the campaign, which doesn't really help make things clear. The same artillery might be in mission 1 and 5 but not in 2,3 and 4. how it's ammo is treated in between.

It would also help to husband ammunition if there was a clearer UI in the scenario itself in regards to aircraft and artillery. There is no real meaningful info available to the player as to what/how much is left.

As for returning men and equipment or replacements thereof, I wouldn't know. Entirely too nebulous for me to make any comment on. Probably somewhat along the same lines.

[phil stanbridge]

Thanks Elmar - I still cant understand why in one campaign, I successfully completed a mission, went on to the next with a full allocation of artillery. In a different campaign, but the same mission, won it successfully, albeit with a few more casualties but nothing out of the ordinary. Went on to the next mission with 155mm artillery showing empty and 81/60mm assets very very low. That makes no sense to me!

[JonS]

Phil,

I think ammn resupply is on a %age basis for each unit. That is; if the ammn resup %age is set to, say, 20%, there is a 1-in-5 chance that the artillery (and each other unit, individually) will be fully resupplied,, NOT that existing ammo for all units will be topped up by 20%. That would explain what you've experienced.

Jon

[LarsS]

Phil,

I think ammn resupply is on a %age basis for each unit. That is; if the ammn resup %age is set to, say, 20%, there is a 1-in-5 chance that the artillery (and each other unit, individually) will be fully resupplied,, NOT that existing ammo for all units will be topped up by 20%. That would explain what you've experienced.

That's what the manual says (p 146), anyway: http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_flippingbook&book_id=2&Itemid=223

[MikeyD]

There's two type of units that can be brought into a campaign battle. The core units and regular-old scenario purchased units. There's been an ongoing debate about whether or not to include artillery as a core unit - The argument against is if the next battle is three days later it would be odd if your supporting howizers hadn't replenished by then. The British campaign, at least, did use indvidual scenario-purchased artillery to avoid that 'still not replenished after 3 days' problem. Its been so long since I looked at Marine and basegame campaigns I simply can't recall what they do.

[phil stanbridge]

Well it's a bit weird as it stands in my opinion. I've just completed another mission (draw this time rather than a win) and some of my artillery assets are still showing empty! As for the manual, I purchased the download only, and I've actually never read it! Thanks for the heads up.

I can't remember but I'm guessing from what you've said, the British module was the most recent? I guess a lot has been learnt in terms of campaign development which is a good thing. I shall have to replay the British campaign again once this is finished. I might try some British single missions first to get some more practice. Those ATGM's are crazy powerful.

[Paper Tiger]

There's been an ongoing debate about whether or not to include artillery as a core unit - The argument against is if the next battle is three days later it would be odd if your supporting howizers hadn't replenished by then.

Well, aren't you funny. Please direct me to this debate MikeyD as, prior to reading your post here, I was unaware that anyone was disagreeing with anyone and surely that is an essential component to any debate. Obviously you do and have decided to start a debate out here.

And frankly, that 'argument' against is utterly irrelevant to the scripting of the NATO campaign as you surely MUST know as we are talking about artillery assets being shared by two or more companies fighting in seperate missions either at the same time or within an hour or so of each each other.

[MikeyD]

Well, I guess I consider my brining up this very issue more than a month ago and being ignored might constitute a debate.

[Paper Tiger]

You wish to pursue this here further? Very well then. Your point was that the campaign scipt can't resupply core artillery units. You concerns were not ignored. My response was to go and do a whole load of testing and found that it can indeed be done. Your objections were noted, investigated and proved to be unfounded and you didn't say anything further after I reported my findings. Now, here you are raising it out here and misrepresenting my case to boot. It's beginning to look like you just don't want me to do this.

Its been so long since I looked at Marine and basegame campaigns I simply can't recall what they do.

Well, isn't that rather disingenuous of you. You know very well how it was done in the Marines campaign since that was the keystone of your point so what's the purpose of this pretence?

Once again, there has been no disagreement on this, simply a 'heads up' of a potential pitfall. The pitfall was subsequently investigated by the warned party. Where's the debate?

[Paper Tiger]

You appear to be focussing on a single, recent iteration. That is not the totality of it.

Of course I am because it's the only part that is relevent to what's happening just now. We have not been discussing the broader question of 'should it be done' but the question of whether it 'can it be done?'. I am not the one who decided to bring this subject up for discussion on the outer boards and you must surely agree that I can't ignore what he is saying.

[Paper Tiger]

I have created a thread elsewhere for continued discussion of this point. I will not participate in discussing this issue further here so please direct your remarks to me there. Thank you.

[Paper Tiger]

I want to deliver an apology here in this thread to MikeyD. I misinterpreted his post and managed to read some criticism of myself into it. Talk about an overblown opinion of one's self. I apologise completely to you Mikey. You didn't deserve to be treated like that. I'm ashamed of my behaviour and I'm very sorry that I did so.

(Oh, and by the way, to anyone other than MikeyD who is reading this, trust me - nobody made me or asked me to do this. This is a genuine apology)

[phil stanbridge]

Phew.. Pleased to hear that you can sort your differences out. Now can I have my thread back please

Another question - curious one this, or is it realistic? This is to do with crew members. I have one vehicle, with one crewman injured/KIA. I have another vehicle destroyed (same type) but the crew survived. How come this crew cannot jump in and take over the surviving vehicle? Is this accurate or not? I would have expected a crew man to be able to jump in and assist.

[Lanzfeld]

In Real Life* then yes.

Game? I dont think it has been programmed that way. Maybe in future?

[phil stanbridge]

It would be a nice little addition to the game if you could get crews to do that. In one mission yesterday, I had a crewman shot by a sniper - it basically rendered the IFV useless in everything but scouting and driving. I guess it was the gunner that took the bullet, but if another crew could 'swap' with the other, it would help prevent moments like that.

[Jonny(FGM)]

If the IFV has 3 crew members then usually someone moves up to the gunner seat if the gunner gets his head blown off, if it's a 2 man job then the driver can't drive and shoot ; )

Some of the british and perhaps a few of the american vehicles can use passengers to man the crew served weapon on the top of it

[phil stanbridge]

If the IFV has 3 crew members then usually someone moves up to the gunner seat if the gunner gets his head blown off, if it's a 2 man job then the driver can't drive and shoot ; )

Some of the british and perhaps a few of the american vehicles can use passengers to man the crew served weapon on the top of it

I can't remember exactly what vehicle it was but it was 2 man job - I realise that he can't do both things at once (although my wife would argue the point) but the vehicle was stationary and I really wanted the driver to assume the gunners role and help out but alas, he just sat there. The 'target' option was not available to me. WEGO makes moments like that somewhat harder to deal with as well, but on the other hand, realtime would have been a nightmare. If I could have instructed the spare crew I had who were right next to the vehicle in question to board and assist, it would have been perfect.