Holman Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 ... whether a German officer enjoying the pleasures of room 6 (with the flying helmet and wet celery) could realistcally be expected to "spot" a US squad in the corrdor outside? Some level of abstraction is best left in. We must not be afraid to face facts. It is time to drag this issue into the light! <Drags issue into light> Ick! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wodin Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Much as I love your website and use it your opinions seem alittle odd...this is a realsitic tactical sim...if you don't like it then I suggest your playing the wrong game...try CoH.... I for one love the realsim and feel BF has a perfect balance...I think you just don't like the game that much and maybe it's to much of a challange and what you want is taken care of with the Men at War and CoH games... There are bugs that need to be sorted...realism isn't one of them. I have yet to read a thread started by you that isn't some sort of compliant.....mentioning possible bugs is fine, but persisent nik picking isn't....if I where you I'd give up with it all together and as mentioned try something else. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agua Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 OK, back to the humour, which uncovers another possible bug: the movie of the scene I descibed above is here: Watch the HMG dude wander un-noticed up to my guy and nail him! Interestingly, what happens next I didn't notice back when I did the turn. The HMG guy takes round after round of fire from outside right to the chest, and doesn't even blink! GaJ HEHEHEHehehee..... that was pretty funny. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Ladies and gentlemen, do not attempt to adjust your sets...you have entered...The Twilight Zone. Where unseen enemies can ruin your day. That said, I can think of more than one WW2 incident I've read of where soldiers from opposing forces encountered each unexpectedly, looked down or away and just kept going like nothing had happened. This guy was not so accommodating, apparently not having read the same books I have. :D 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenAsJade Posted June 9, 2011 Author Share Posted June 9, 2011 Much as I love your website and use it your opinions seem alittle odd...this is a realsitic tactical sim...if you don't like it then I suggest your playing the wrong game...try CoH.... I for one love the realsim and feel BF has a perfect balance...I think you just don't like the game that much and maybe it's to much of a challange and what you want is taken care of with the Men at War and CoH games... There are bugs that need to be sorted...realism isn't one of them. I have yet to read a thread started by you that isn't some sort of compliant.....mentioning possible bugs is fine, but persisent nik picking isn't....if I where you I'd give up with it all together and as mentioned try something else. The whole purpose of being here in the BFC forum is to provide feedback and solicit alternative opinions about possible problems. I'm not a fan boi. I don't start thread after thread about how great the game is. I bought it, I play it, and I contribute to the CM gaming community along with the best of them. Web sites, mods, scenarios and club acitivities. I also do praise what I think is good, in good measure. Go look properly at my posting history if in doubt. But as I said, the primary reason for posting at BFC is that it's the place where people who can influence the game read about experiences with it. So these posts aren't "nit picking", they are genuine feedback with the goal of sharing player experience that may lead to improvement. I always take great care not to cry "bug" when I'm not certain my experience is a bug. I always follow up on my bug reporst with substantiation - videos, save files etc. In the case of this thread, I started it not to nit pick but to have a sensible discussion about the impact of the direction the game has taken towards realism: the impact being that it's much more likely to experience "stoopid" things, because so much more has to be modelled about the behaviour of troops. If this observation doesn't interest you, too bad. It interests me. BFC have taken on a heck of a lot in moving to individual troop representation and I shared two examples of where the increase in realistic representation hasn't yet had the AI catch up with sensible behaviour. I also offered an opinion on the root cause in programming terms (pure guesswork from the outside of course) in case this small contribution triggers some thinking somewhere like "hey, we could give troops awareness all around irrespective of facing for say 3 meters circle, and this behaviour would be solved". Who knows, it might be that easy, it might not: the goal is to share the experience and seed improvements to the game. In one case, this sharing caused some valuable information to come to light: that cover inside a building is abstracted to a dice roll _after_ the bullet intersects the solider. Knowing this abstraction, I can now view the exact same video, of bullets going through a guy and not killing him, with different eyes. For me that was worthwhile. If I was to ask one thing, then, it would be to read my posts not as nit-picking, but rather for what they are: genuine well intentioned player feedback. GaJ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mord Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 In the case of this thread, I started it not to nit pick but to have a sensible discussion about the impact of the direction the game has taken towards realism: the impact being that it's much more likely to experience "stoopid" things, because so much more has to be modelled about the behaviour of troops. There was a lot of heat about this back in the CMSF forums for quite a while. Basically the infantry in buildings and the scenes not living up to the rest of the 1:1. It boiled down to the fact that we still have to deal with some abstractions...It's not so bad once, as you've just learned, you figure out the interiors are simulated under the hood and bonus/modifiers will kinda come into play. With CMX1 we dealt with giant amounts of infantry abstractions, with CMX2 well, unfortunately there's still some but on a much lower level. I look at it this way...it takes a lot less of my imagination to process interior fighting in CMX2 than it did in CMBO or CMBB. It's not perfect but it can be pretty fun...I am not above a tweak here or there though. I imagine over time it will get better. But sounds like you are comfortable with it now, so that's good. Mord. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlapHappy Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 GAJ In Shock Force it used to be that if you ran infantry into a building they would completely ignore anybody in it and go park themselves at a window spot....and get mowed down. I made a few posts saying that a building attacker ought to have some chance of defeating a building defended enemy even if that enemy is not completely or remotely suppressed. It felt just too chess-like....if you entered an enemy occupied building and they weren't completely suppressed....they mowed your troopers down. So a tweak was made that gave the building attacker the ability spot and engage enemies without the annoying parking behavior from previous CMSF versions. Whether that behavior has not been put into the CMBN version, or it has been toned down a bunch, I cannot say. All I can say is the later CMSF model gave you a good opportunity to take that building in a standup fight. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Realism is a touch awry with my HMG crew shooting two my men in the back 37 metres in front them. Ok fixed point firing but without any enemy visible to any of my men - having become deceased just previously it did seem fairly stupid to nail them - and in separate bursts 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sand digger Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 If the tank commander could see the foxholes but the main gunner couldn't then the target line should have been grey and the main gun shouldn't fire at all. So, if the line was blue then either the gunner is an idiot who can't cope with the idea of adjusting the point of aim based a the fall of his last shot (a distinct possibility as I get lots of those sorts of gunners in my Shermans), or there is a problem with the game mechanics. I've had several situations like this, basically what seems to happen is that the shot either just clears the intervening terrain or it does not eg one shot will clear, the next one fails to do so. I'm assuming that the correct arcing path of the shot has been modelled although it is difficult to tell if this is so. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenAsJade Posted June 13, 2011 Author Share Posted June 13, 2011 The whole purpose of being here in the BFC forum is to provide feedback and solicit alternative opinions about possible problems. ... we had a good example of how this is supposed to work here and here. Not nitpicking. Discussing possible issues, seeing who else has them, maybe getting some feedback from BFC. Sometimes they point out the rationale behind why things are as they are and we all move on. Sometimes they confirm its a bug (and its important to acknowledge that these are rare) and we all rejoice that a fix is coming. I'll also add the WWII CM is the only game I play. I'm fan I'm not going to go play something else, I'm just going to keep contributing and working towards even better WWII CM gaming... Cheers, GaJ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlapHappy Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 GAJ In Shock Force it used to be that if you ran infantry into a building they would completely ignore anybody in it and go park themselves at a window spot....and get mowed down. I made a few posts saying that a building attacker ought to have some chance of defeating a building defended enemy even if that enemy is not completely or remotely suppressed. It felt just too chess-like....if you entered an enemy occupied building and they weren't completely suppressed....they mowed your troopers down. So a tweak was made that gave the building attacker the ability spot and engage enemies without the annoying parking behavior from previous CMSF versions. Whether that behavior has not been put into the CMBN version, or it has been toned down a bunch, I cannot say. All I can say is the later CMSF model gave you a good opportunity to take that building in a standup fight. Found it. It was patch 1.11 for Shock Force. From the website: "Soldiers can "fire on the move" when inside buildings." Is this still in? 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.