Slitherine

Posted: **Wed Aug 17, 2011 12:50 pm**

Xerkis wrote:
El_Condoro wrote:
you'd see a quote that never occurred. I have disabled BBCode in this post so that the code I typed shows instead of the resulting quote box.
Putting words in someone else’s mouth – great way to will an argument.

However
But that isnt really what happened as HIS words " JA etc" show up UNDER my forum logon name as if i had posted it!!!!

Fortunlety his reply to mine was just exchanging knowledge and not an argument etc so no issue but it really could be a problem... Hopefully just a one time hicup where two logons/posts somehow merged into one..... (unless someone with moederator rights is playing a joke, although i doudt moderators even have the power to do that... the plot thickens)

Posted: **Thu Aug 18, 2011 1:42 pm**

Please check the movement sound off the US 155mm M12 GMC gun, It has the towed gun sound. Also its Ammo load of 10 seems like a mistake. Thats a lot of ammo for a 155mm SPA (most others carry about 4 shots).
Also check the icon sizes for the different nationalities towed AT guns. The German 7.5mm looks tiny (half size) even compared to the 37 and 57mm US guns.

Posted: **Thu Aug 18, 2011 3:11 pm**

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/11/bugtt.png/

Is that a bug?

Look at the infantry with strength 4. It was attacked by the tank and it surrendered instead of moving to the other river field.

Bug or feature?

If it is a bug it should be fixed in the next patch.

Thank you for your attention!

*edit: I just opened a new topic for that thing.

Posted: **Thu Aug 18, 2011 3:41 pm**

Generalex wrote:http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/11/bugtt.png/

Is that a bug?

Look at the infantry with strength 4. It was attacked by the tank and it surrendered instead of moving to the other river field.

Bug or feature?

If it is a bug it should be fixed in the next patch.

Thank you for your attention!

I think that is a “big river” and you can’t be on those. Where you are now is a bridge.

You’re a hardcore commander – you’re asking your troops to jump over the side of the bridge in to that raging water.

Posted: **Thu Aug 18, 2011 4:36 pm**

Xerkis wrote:
Razz1 wrote:
McRoos wrote:What a patch should include !

The possibility to select or deselect the UNDO option.
A recon unit is useless, as I can spot terrain with my tank or infantry by selecting a hex, find a out there is no enemy around, undo my turn and select the next hex.

This is a real cheater in my opinion.

Having written this, I don't actually know whether the option is already available !!
This is a real cheater in my opinion.

Then don't do it.

Undo needs to be enhanced as every player uses it in MP. It destroys the game. Can never set up an ambush.

A compromise is to allow only one undo for every land unit. That will help some.

Otherwise eliminate it, except for recon. Only negative is that a player can get an estimate for mass attacks. That's why the compromise works well.
Wow, I just would never think to use the undo in such a way. Yeah – that is cheating.

But I have used the undo to see what my attack odds will be between mine and two enemy units (that I can already see though) I do this just to see which one I want to attack. But 99 times out of 100, I have already determined ahead of time that I will attack one of the two.
Wondering if you would think that was cheating too? Or is it what it really is for me – being too lazy to figure out the odds on a fight before committing to it? As the saying goes, all is fair in love and war – but I still try to be more honorable than that.

Like you comprise idea though – assuming this is as big of an issue as it is sounding to be.

One of my MP (non-password) games I have noticed my opponent doing this very thing. Every turn in each area of the map: move one space – undo – move two spaces – undo – move three…. Etc. – and then precision attacks. Each and every turn.

Ummm… Fog Of War was “on” not “off”. If I wanted you to see where all my units were and what they are before you attack I would have made the FOW as “off”.

Definitely not right and a BIG hole in the ever praised “balance” of the game.

I will be canceling that MP game now and look for someone with a bit more honor.

Posted: **Fri Aug 19, 2011 10:54 am**

Is there any chance to show the CORE army casualties at the end of the scenario ? I mean some of us might be interested what were lost during the current scenario. The list should show the original state of the unit when it had been deployed and a note in which turn it was killed.

regards, Stephen

I know there is already a casuality list implemented but that shows all the lost units /not only the core units plus it shows an overall list of units what were lost during the whole campaign/

Posted: **Fri Aug 19, 2011 12:50 pm**

One more thing that should be added is an "African scenario" alternative after Sealion 1940.

Posted: **Fri Aug 19, 2011 1:19 pm**

A minor detail that could be added is a different marginal victory text in Moscow 1943. Now it´s the same that the 1941 one...damn Stalin! You always got away just a few days before i capture Moscow

Also some text changes in Kursk map. After you capture Stalingrad and Baku is a bit irritanting reading a text that says that you lost the city. Why? I get a Decisive Victory. It seems the the text was written with the fall of Stalingrad in mind.

In fact, after capturing the Caucasus a Kursk scenario would be historically unlikely....

Posted: **Fri Aug 19, 2011 1:37 pm**

Haven't seen this mentioned before and a quick search on the forum also didn't show this, but it looks like the Tiger I to Tiger II is broken. I need to pay the full amount if I want to upgrade to a Tiger II, which is not in line with all the other upgrade trajectories like Pz III and Pz IV.

Posted: **Fri Aug 19, 2011 2:49 pm**

Shrike wrote:Haven't seen this mentioned before and a quick search on the forum also didn't show this, but it looks like the Tiger I to Tiger II is broken. I need to pay the full amount if I want to upgrade to a Tiger II, which is not in line with all the other upgrade trajectories like Pz III and Pz IV.

Thats not a bug, its a feature.
Tiger II is not a direct evolution from Tiger I.

Posted: **Fri Aug 19, 2011 4:04 pm**

I would like to see anti-air capabilities diminished some. It seems like forts, engineers, and units such as tanks/tank destroyers are too powerful in this regard.

I know you can't have every units.. but I'd also like to see the Arado Ar 234, it saw more combat missions than the He-162 s did. Aside from being the first recon/jet bomber.

Posted: **Fri Aug 19, 2011 5:52 pm**

I would like to see anti-air capabilities diminished some. It seems like forts, engineers, and units such as tanks/tank destroyers are too powerful in this regard.

I agree and think this needs some tweaking.Tac bombers seem a bit toothless in this version. Trying to bomb a troop with AA capability thats sitting in any kind of cover only results in aircraft getting shot down and no damage to the targetted ground unit.

Slitherine

What a patch should include.

Casualty list question

Tiger I to Tiger II upgrade boken?

Re: Tiger I to Tiger II upgrade boken?