Ingame feedback from: Obsolete

Obsolete · Post by **Obsolete** » Thu May 27, 2010 7:26 pm

Shouldn't cornfields have a cover rating higher than 30%?

Obsolete · Post by **Obsolete** » Thu May 27, 2010 7:42 pm

It seems in my scenarios tanks can always run through trees. I even specifically put down the tree_blocking asset, and they still run through them. Perhaps there is a setting toggle somewhere?

It also seems the trees don't give the cover bonus either.

Post by **pipfromslitherine** » Thu May 27, 2010 9:00 pm

It's a little complicated - IIRC the blocking trees are blocking in that they block LOS, not block movement. To block movement the object needs to change the tile terrain you see (we have a specific forest tile for example). I hope that explains the issue you are seeing?

Cheers

Pip

Post by **pipfromslitherine** » Thu May 27, 2010 9:04 pm

If you are in battle and F1 doesn't pop up a box with some keyboard shortcuts, that is very odd. It is hardcoded into the game to show the popup. Is this true of all campaigns?

Cheers

Pip

Obsolete · Post by **Obsolete** » Thu May 27, 2010 9:14 pm

I get the pop-up, but there is no where that I see the map name listed.

Obsolete · Post by **Obsolete** » Thu May 27, 2010 9:27 pm

One very minor aesthetics issue... When I have a unit selected and it gets killed on the AI;s turn, it still is selected on my next turn, and shows red-markers for targets.

Post by **pipfromslitherine** » Thu May 27, 2010 10:12 pm

The map name is at the very bottom, probably fairly faint. In its own little box below the main window.

Cheers

Pip

Obsolete · Post by **Obsolete** » Fri May 28, 2010 6:42 am

Ahah! I see it now. The problem is it was super-imposed over the unit stats, and it said "MP1" which I thought was an indication of movement points at first glance.

So... problem solved. The official map was "MP1"

Obsolete · Post by **Obsolete** » Fri May 28, 2010 3:55 pm

I realize now there are situations where neigher side can win in an online scenario. Often when one has no armour, and another has no infantry. There should be some DRAW method, where both players could vote for it in agreement. Then game can be officially recorded for such on the server.

Perhaps it's not needed after all, since both player scould manually agree to one regardless, it's just a matter of who surrenders to conlude the game :P

The only issue here, is it could be a potential for past disputes in certain ladder-clubs. One player argues the other quit and it wasn't an agreed draw, etc. I've seen this sort of thing over and over again during the last decade of wargaming.

Obsolete · Post by **Obsolete** » Fri May 28, 2010 3:57 pm

How the hell do I throw a track when I'm parked on a paved road and just want to move straight for 1 tile? I only am getting aggitated now, as I'm having some bad luck with this damned "We've thrown a track!" multiples times each turn, and always at the most crutial time. I understand shit luck is supposed to happen now and then, but is that realistic for paved roads when I"m not even turning?

Post by **pipfromslitherine** » Fri May 28, 2010 4:07 pm

It might be that we want to make the chance based on the movement cost (so harder terrain means a greater chance to bog down or break down).

We are going to implement a new 'end game' system for MP which will probably end the game once a certain % of your troops are dead in comparison to the enemy, or possibly a certain 'value' of troops as per the values used on the force selection screens. We recognise that the last few units point in a game can be pretty unfulfilling, so there will be logic to try and avoid it.

Cheers

Pip

Obsolete · Post by **Obsolete** » Sat May 29, 2010 7:28 am

In my last multi-player Normandy scenario, I got raped a bit after runing into an intermittent bug. It seems armour can in fact attack across stone-walls sometimes. For some reason, there is a glitch that lets them shoot 1 tile past a stone-wall in certain cases (or is this some un-written rule?). I confirmed this by checking LoS and do not know why it happens some times and not others. Probably has to do with myh infantry present. Is this a bug or a specific game mechanic with walls and combined arms?

Obsolete · Post by **Obsolete** » Sat May 29, 2010 5:31 pm

Here's a shot from my continue. Notice for some reason I can shoot 1 tile over the walls on the Right side of my selected Sherman? What would cause this?

Obsolete · Post by **Obsolete** » Sat May 29, 2010 5:36 pm

BTW, the devs are probably aware of this but just incase not... sometimes there seems to be a camera problem where it shifts the view in very rapid succession sometimes if a unit does some sort of bizzare movement (I think). It's hard to tell what's going on, but I suspect it may be due to the movement of a unit in a way that causes the camera angle/location to shift every single tile crossed?

I'm not sure how to really explain this without a video capture. It happens once in a while, so it's a little hard to catch. The best I can describe it is like a zig-zag type of pattern.

Obsolete · Post by **Obsolete** » Sat May 29, 2010 6:57 pm

I noticed something strange from tests. The armour on a Panther is weaker in the front than in the rear. I'll check the squad's file to see if that could be the culprit. If not then we have another problem to debug somewhere...

Obsolete · Post by **Obsolete** » Sat May 29, 2010 7:07 pm

Never mind about the Panther issue, I think I probably misread something there. I'll keep an eye on it just incase.

Obsolete · Post by **Obsolete** » Sat May 29, 2010 9:31 pm

I've mentioned a problem before with the angle-body, & angle-turret methods. There seems to be definitely something going on weird there.

If I am face-to-face with a target, my angles return back as 0. If I face the opposite, I get 180 returned. Fair enough, and if I turn side-ways, I get 89. Well, I'm sure that's just a rounding error, so 90 is pretty much spot-on.

But the problems arise when I face diagonals. Instead of 45 degrees returned, I get 26; and instead of 135 degrees, I get 153 for example.

I'm not sure what is going on here. At least internally I think things are working out ok, since the arcs seem calculated right for penetration. So I'm not sure what's with the strange values returned on these diags.

Obsolete · Post by **Obsolete** » Sat May 29, 2010 10:02 pm

For some reason, a Tiger's frontal armour is weaker than that of a Panther. After checking the squad file it does indeed seem that's how it was speficied to be.

Is that realistic?

adherbal · Post by **adherbal** » Sat May 29, 2010 11:22 pm

Think it is. Panther used sloped armour based on T34. Tiger was of an older, straight armour design (albeit thicker than Panther, apparantly less effective). Tiger II is ment to combine Tigers thicker armour with Panthers sloped armour.

Obsolete · Post by **Obsolete** » Sat May 29, 2010 11:31 pm

Well, I do understand that the reason for the weird frontal shape of the Tiger was because what you see is not the original Tiger design. When Porsche rolled out the first prototypes of the Tiger, it had extra revolving armour plating on the front. This was dropped on all later models. I assumed because they decided the Tiger already had enough plating as it was.

What has me puzzled now, is why is the Tiger assumed to be the top dog in tank discussions, when it seems the Panther just about beats it in almost every way. Perhaps that Tigerphobia still haunts people to this day?

Reality check here... the Tiger in this game has fewer action points, weaker frontal armour, a larger profile, and is slow as hell to respond. (And breaks down at 4-to-1 odds!). Now why the hell would any sane person want one of these things, when an older Panther pretty much owns it?

Oh, and the irony of this all is... not only is the Tiger much easier to HIT, but when you HIT you actually do more damage on top of that, LOL.