RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Close Combat Series >> Close Combat: Wacht am Rhein



Message


crushingleeek -> RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (12/4/2008 2:40:11 AM)

Yes, The mortars travel way too fast.

I have no gripes about accuracy or damage potential. I think that's fine. But they land way too FAST!!!




squadleader_id -> RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (12/4/2008 2:59:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomada_Firefox

And speaking from errors, I do not understand because nobody changed the numbers from days and they mainteined the original from CC5. Of course I fixed it.
[image]http://www.clannomada.com/gallery/2_03_12_08_8_22_41.jpg[/image]



Looks like in CCWAR the numbers represent a 'generic' day (day 1, day 2, day 3 etc)...I don't think they're dates in June '44 from the original CC5 ('cause they start at 1 not 6).
In CCWAR: Classic CCIV they represent dates (December '44 to January '45)...just like your mod.




Andrew Williams -> RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (12/4/2008 3:26:22 AM)

Day 1, the first day to day 26 the last day ( a nod to modders that can use any days they want)

The WaR campaign begins on 16 December the day the Germans Launched the attack and finishes on 9th January the day after Adolf Hitler authorized a partial withdrawal.




crushingleeek -> RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (12/4/2008 3:52:31 AM)

Can we take all the great things that close combat is, and combine them with the great visuals of Sudden Strike II (or precisely, Hidden Stroke II, my favorite!)



[image]local://upfiles/30551/45341A02DB5343DEA05BE4EC44B1372C.jpg[/image]




TheReal_Pak40 -> RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (12/4/2008 4:07:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Neil N
Bazooka has a base accuracy of 85% and bazooka has a base accuracy of 75%.


I suppose you meant to say mortars have 85%...

In your 60mm test did the crew have LOS to the target area?

I just did my own tests, all were about 175m to target area:

60mm - No line of sight to target area - about 15 meter spread from center.

60mm - Under influence of Platoon command team with LOS to target - about 10 meter spread from center

81mm - direct LOS to target area - about 5 meter spread from center

I call that pretty darn accurate, especially for the last test with direct LOS which more or less duplicates a firing range test.





Nomada_Firefox -> RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (12/4/2008 4:15:13 AM)

Yes Sudden Strike II has good graphics for a game like it but it has it is not 0% realistic, it is more like a C&C from WWII. Of course a CC game with this graphics would be fantastic. And personally the graphics from Sudden Strike II are better and fun than the graphics on Sudden Strike III.




TheReal_Pak40 -> RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (12/4/2008 4:19:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomada_Firefox

quote:

Of course, the real problem with the mortars is that the rounds reach the target way too fast, making them easy to use against running infantry. It should take something like 10 seconds instead of the current 3 seconds or so.


I will check it. But the chance on WAR mortar is 6 or 8 times bigger than on other CC game.


What do you mean by "chance"?

quote:


And speaking from errors, I do not understand because nobody changed the numbers from days and they mainteined the original from CC5. Of course I fixed it.


This was not an error. The numbers don't represent the date. They represent the day of the operation. Kind of like D-Day, D-Day+1, D-Day+2 etc...




Pzt_Serk -> RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (12/4/2008 4:58:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheReal_Pak40

thanks, I didn't know that. Does the immobilized tank have to be abandoned too (I assume)?



No they don't need to be abandonned to be captured. After the battle, you will see the crew of the captured vehicule with small arms only as weapon because they lost the tank. Oddly crewmembers are not listed as captured/mia. Abandonned tank and other vehicules are automaticly lost no matter what.




Moss Orleni -> RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (12/4/2008 9:19:57 AM)

The central question here is the frequency of the immobilization check.
If the check is made for each element tile, that means (IIRC) each 10 pixels or each 2 meters.
So fi for Leaves & Snowy Brush, where the odds are 1/128, that would mean that for each 128 element tiles crossed, you would have one 'succesful' check (statistically speaking).
Basically, it would mean your vehicle would become immobilized after driving on average 2*128=256m... on leaves and brush ... [X(]

Now please tell me that there's something wrong with my calculations...[:)]

Cheers,

Moss




Neil N -> RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (12/4/2008 2:23:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheReal_Pak40

I suppose you meant to say mortars have 85%...

In your 60mm test did the crew have LOS to the target area?

I just did my own tests, all were about 175m to target area:

60mm - No line of sight to target area - about 15 meter spread from center.

60mm - Under influence of Platoon command team with LOS to target - about 10 meter spread from center

81mm - direct LOS to target area - about 5 meter spread from center

I call that pretty darn accurate, especially for the last test with direct LOS which more or less duplicates a firing range test.


My 60mm mortar is set at 75% based on the chance table in the workbook...might be with the latest patch beta files, and they did have LOS to target.

That is very impressive shooting. So all of your 81m rounds fell within 25 pixels of the target? I have never experienced accuracy like that for mortars.

Something else that can be used to make them less accurate are the range modifiers. Currently, mortars use the medium modifier up to 600m...so the Long range modifier is rarely used based on the size of maps. I'll do some tests bringing the range modifiers down some.




Moss Orleni -> RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (12/4/2008 4:07:11 PM)

Indeed: you can decrease your accuracy even more by putting your PB, Short and Medium Ranges to very low figures (f.i. 1,2 and 3). Like that, your weapon always fires at Long Range and you get the accuracy penalty that comes with it. For this to work, you should put your Base Accuracy to at least 6. The combined effect gives an even wider dispersal of your incoming rounds.
Try it, and share your testing results!

Cheers,

Moss




TheReal_Pak40 -> RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (12/5/2008 2:52:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Neil N

That is very impressive shooting. So all of your 81m rounds fell within 25 pixels of the target? I have never experienced accuracy like that for mortars.



I didn't measure pixels, I used the LOS(fire) tool to estimate distance in meters. Pixels are not a real good way to measure anyway since people may play at different resolutions. But, to answer your question, yes, in the test all of the 81mm rounds fell within 5 meters of the target point, very tight grouping.

Honestly, rarely do I have a mortar team that has a clear LOS to it's target because that also means that they've likely been spotted by the AI. The AI will start to hurl it's own mortar rounds at my mortar team and put direct fire on them also, suppressing them or even killing them. Also I like to get my mortar teams as close to enemy positions as possible, this will increase accuracy also.

The best thing to do is have one of your platoon commanders do the spotting for your mortar team which should be withing the command radius but out of LOS to enemy units.




nietsche -> RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (12/5/2008 3:41:23 AM)

I am quite sure that there are small spaces on maps that you cannot see and cause de-tracking in areas you would not expect it.
If the low percentage chance of losing a track was "real" then it would be one in 10k+ games for you to lose 2 tanks de-tracked in the first minute of the battle when crossing light snow and roads. I have in fact had at least five battles where this happened (well after I learned to make sure vehicles are not started in woods). I even cancelled games and retried them with the same deployments (as far as I could manage) and saw the same results.

I actually think that detracking is a good thing to replicate reliability issues better. I do go back to the idea of reducing speed by 70%, 50% and 30% as intermediate options for damage. Doing that would be more realistic. So would engine stalls and failures, turret movement problems etc... but clearly those things would be a big change.

I do think the default settings for detracking are a bit of a problem but it is a matter of degree rather than worth of being disabled (maybe 20-30% less often detracked for panthers and 10-20 less for mark IV).

I also see that having obstacles close to roads causes trouble. A minor deviation due to pathing issues can make a tank brush a bush and become immobile. Then I have seen many a tank doing circles across the verge of a stone bridge for 10 minutes and not get immobilised (and some that have "missed" the bridge and become a sitting duck with their flank exposed).

These things are frustrating. Driving tanks was hard enough. Maintaining tanks that were hand produced while the factory was being bombed and quality of supply of parts was always in doubt was a nightmare.

Overall tanks were very powerful and frustratingly unreliable mechanical devices. Anyone ever driven an 1940's built car and found them to be a picture of mechanical excellence?




Neil N -> RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (12/5/2008 6:03:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheReal_Pak40
Pixels are not a real good way to measure anyway since people may play at different resolutions.


Pixels are the perfect way to measure, because no matter what resolution you play at, 5 pixels is always equal to 1m. Of course, capturing with a high quality editing program helps. Ever since I noticed distortion with UOSO I always capture with PS.




GoodGuy -> RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (12/5/2008 6:20:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: nietsche

[]...Overall tanks were very powerful and frustratingly unreliable mechanical devices. Anyone ever driven an 1940's built car and found them to be a picture of mechanical excellence?

That's a pretty simple generalization, sorry.

1940's cars may have been less fragile and finicky than you think, and they incorporated quite some innovations and mechanical reliability/quality. The Mercedes-Benz W136 (around 1936/1937), a roadster (170 VR, 170 VS [twin carburetor]), consumed 13 liters/100 km. That aint bad if compared to modern fuel swigging roadsters/sportscars or recent premium sedans.

For the versions participating in the then popular "cross-country" reliability-races/parades, the car bodies consisted of a magnesium alloy and the fenders were made of aluminium, reducing the weight about up to 260 kg.
Some Mercedes cars had "compressors" (a certain type of pressure charging). Safety measures such as a deformable zone or a safety steering column had not yet been invented, but I wouldn't say that owners of 1940s cars were better off with a horse drawn carriage, back then [:D], reliability/quality-wise.

Back to the tanks: Russian T-34 tanks were mechanical reliable, and (afaik) rather immune to Russian (winter) weather conditions. Captured T-34 were popular among German tank crews, due to their reliability and mechanical simplicity (for maintenance). The limited field of vision for the commander was a different story, though.
US Shermans were pretty reliable too, with a relatively low number of variants, streamlined/simplified/reliable design allowing for high factory output, maybe at the cost of crew protection and penetration power.

quote:

[].... Maintaining tanks that were hand produced while the factory was being bombed and quality of supply of parts was always in doubt was a nightmare.


"Hand-produced": Well, no robots involved back then [;)]. Other than that, late war tanks' hulls consisted of 2-3 parts (hull + chassis + turret or just hull + turret later on), the remaining parts then "just" had to be put in.
I don't see a too big difference to a more modern assembly line, except for the various single/unique parts which had to be welded let's say on German tank turrets or as instrument/gear inside. It just takes more effort when assembling less streamlined vehicles, let alone having various sub-types. Having rather complicated vehicle designs, which offered enhanced protection and superior firepower, lowered the German factory output.
An interesting what-if here would be whether they should have "copied" T-34s or Shermans and how things then would have played out. IMHO, their early victories were a result of concerted use of combined forces or the then new commitment of airborne troops, not necessarily a result of superior equipment, as the Allies did have some assets (ie. french medium tanks 1940, Mathilda tanks in Greece 1941, Russian T-34).

As for the German situation regarding material quality, a division of the Waffenamt rejected some grades of steel (each grade had its own "serial number" or designation) coming from the melt facilities, each melt had to apply for approval if a grade was outside the specified chemical composition or hardness.

The Germans employed a standard procedure to test the armor's resistance to penetration and mode of failure, this included penetration tests with armor-piercing rounds on representative test samples from each melt. Certain specifications had to be met, before the Waffenamt would let the particular grade pass.

I'm not totally sure whether mechanical parts (gears, wheels, gun mounts, turret drive[train] etc.) underwent some material testing (at least the tracks had been tested thoroughly) as well, but you can be sure that the Germans used to be pretty nit-picky there, especially since they had to excel regarding quality, as they could not compete with the numerical output of Allied factories.

According to recent literature, there is no proof that the Germans ever used substandard armor plates/parts, as original documents state compliance with standard specifications all through the war.

The massive number of breakdowns of German tanks (Tiger I, Tiger II and Panther tanks), starting with the very first Tiger I (2 of the first 3 tanks broke down, IIRC) fielded in Russia, rather occured due to faulty and hasty design. All these tanks' developments had been rushed to get the new tanks to the fronts, without the possibility to apply thorough testing. Some of the first versions of the sophisticated German tanks were underpowered (really weak engine) - thus putting more mechanical stress on parts like the drive units/transmissions. Many tanks got immobilized due to jammed transmissions.

Some of the early engines and transmissions were so finicky that it took careful starting on part of the drivers. For example, the Tiger I's transmission suffered of a bad design, the transmission and drive were not fully capable of powering a vehicle of that size/weight, although this lack of reliability could have been discovered in a couple of field tests. A real re-design never took place, as production then focused on the Panther tanks. In turn, suffering of similar problems with the gears, the Panthers received at least some modifications with the later revisions.

I don't think that the material quality was the big issue here, it may have been rather about badly designed parts, undersized parts or underpowered engines.

Actually, German ammunition and explosives (mines, rifle/small arm rounds, artillery rounds, Panzerschreck rounds) were subject to various quality problems here and there, indeed, as they were often produced by slave labourers (who might have produced some amount of bad pieces on purpose - sabotage) or by inexperienced/underqualified civilian workers.




TheReal_Pak40 -> RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (12/5/2008 5:53:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Neil N


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheReal_Pak40
Pixels are not a real good way to measure anyway since people may play at different resolutions.


Pixels are the perfect way to measure, because no matter what resolution you play at, 5 pixels is always equal to 1m. Of course, capturing with a high quality editing program helps. Ever since I noticed distortion with UOSO I always capture with PS.


Well, maybe you're right. But the problem I have is that I can't see individual pixels at my resolution. It's much easier to use the LOS tool and measure in meters.




Perturabo -> RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (12/5/2008 6:42:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomada_Firefox

quote:

Of course, the real problem with the mortars is that the rounds reach the target way too fast, making them easy to use against running infantry. It should take something like 10 seconds instead of the current 3 seconds or so.

I will check it. But the chance on WAR mortar is 6 or 8 times bigger than on other CC game.

Well, I'm not sure if it's really a problem - when I read about soldiers receiving mortar fire in open in relations from WWII, usually there are casualties even if they were prone.
Personally, I have an opposite problem with CC mortars - sometimes a prone soldier in open receives a direct hit and doesn't even get injured despite that the KR and BR is much higher than his armour.




Neil N -> RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (12/5/2008 8:57:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomada_Firefox

quote:

Of course, the real problem with the mortars is that the rounds reach the target way too fast, making them easy to use against running infantry. It should take something like 10 seconds instead of the current 3 seconds or so.

I will check it. But the chance on WAR mortar is 6 or 8 times bigger than on other CC game.

Well, I'm not sure if it's really a problem - when I read about soldiers receiving mortar fire in open in relations from WWII, usually there are casualties even if they were prone.
Personally, I have an opposite problem with CC mortars - sometimes a prone soldier in open receives a direct hit and doesn't even get injured despite that the KR and BR is much higher than his armour.


Look at the columns in the elements file that mention 'Protection Prone', 'Protection Low', etc. The elements do adjust the kill rating of weapons. The explosion may appear to be right on top of him, but that does not necessarily mean that the impact occurred on the same exact element tile that the soldiers 'body' is on. And don't forget that ground explosions tend to explode Up and Out. Just a few things to kick around




GoodGuy -> RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (12/5/2008 10:23:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Neil N
And don't forget that ground explosions tend to explode Up and Out. Just a few things to kick around

In 1994, a single 120mm mortar-round hit the busy main market square in Sarajevo, killing 68 and wounding 200 people.

IIRC, on a politicial level, there was a first meeting of the 3 parties involved and the shelling by the Serbs had ceased for a while, which may have caused people to go out and try to buy some desperately needed food.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/5/newsid_2535000/2535435.stm

The round hit the paved market square and the explosion was anything than "up and out":

quote:

ORIGINAL BBC article:
"Some people were literally torn apart" - Witness

If you check out the so-called "Sarajevo-roses", some are just scratches on or tiny holes in the concrete/paved parts of the city, and if you check out casualty numbers, you might be able to imagine that the explosion usually had a devastating effect on the "soft" targets, especially since the impact won't create a crater on the sealed ground.

According to video material and articles I found, the serbs usually used 80mm mortars in the Sarajevo area. The article mentions that a single mortar round killed 16 people queuing for bread in 1992 - hit by a 80mm round, most likely, as the Bosnian Serbs took over tanks and the 80 mm mortars from the Serbian army, when hostilities began.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarajevo_Rose

http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=sarajevo+rose

That said, I tend to think that even 60mm/80mm rounds in the game have way less "punch" than in reality.
I for one came across some AI "laser" mortars as well on a few occasions, where each round killed a soldier, although the entire group was running towards a house.

Also, the "accuracy" of AI firing blindly seems to be somewhat suspicious, whereas my rounds (fired blindly by experienced crews) hit anything but the targeted area, within a square of up to 60 x 60 meters. With a veteran crew and with a clear LOS/LOF, my mortar rounds may drop on the very same spot several times in a row - right next to a sneaking enemy soldier, but - although barely missing - without causing any effect.

RE: tracks - well, my halftracks tend to throw tracks on these snowy branches/bushes. It seems to be odd that a vehicle like this (with a rather light weight: 4 - 9 tons), which has very good cross-country capabilities, would throw a track on terrain looking like it would consist of plain ground with a few hedges/bushes here and there. Tanks are not affected as much on that type of terrain, but they may throw a track if they keep circling on this kinda terrain.
I know that i have to avoid this kinda terrain, but a new player may be extremely frustrated, as he won't get why crossing a few bushes would result in ending up with an immobilized vehicle.




Neil N -> RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (12/5/2008 10:59:28 PM)

GoodGuy,

you don't have to convince me...I believe that mortars are far more deadly in terms of shrapnel and flying debris than they currently are in the game.  Hell, the US army manual states that the WW2 era Mk2 Grenade could send shrapnel out 200m and that shrapnel was lethal out to 30m.  In CC, I think the blast radius is set to 8m




Nomada_Firefox -> RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (12/5/2008 11:58:31 PM)

All we know that mortars cause many damage on people, structure and vehicles but it is a "Close Combat" with only 15 teams and super weapons are not good for gameplay.




Andrew Williams -> RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (12/6/2008 12:07:33 AM)

quote:

well, my halftracks tend to throw tracks on these snowy branches/bushes


This will be addressed, somewhat, in the next patch.




Perturabo -> RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (12/6/2008 12:13:00 AM)

15 teams isn't enough for even a single company, so IMO most of mortars should stay off the map.

quote:

ORIGINAL:  Neil N

Look at the columns in the elements file that mention 'Protection Prone', 'Protection Low', etc.  The elements do adjust the kill rating of weapons.  The explosion may appear to be right on top of him, but that does not necessarily mean that the impact occurred on the same exact element tile that the soldiers 'body' is on.  And don't forget that ground explosions tend to explode Up and Out.  Just a few things to kick around

Hmm...
How does it exactly work? The protection ratings seem to be pretty crazy. If I'll lower the protection, will cover alone protect soldiers?




Senior Drill -> RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (12/6/2008 2:59:30 AM)

Please, when making determinations on kill and injury causing radius of mortars and grenades, stick to WWII specifications. Modern US mortar and grenades have, at a minimum, twice the explosive force as their 1941 counterparts and have much more highly designed fragmentation structures. It is like comparing young, unripe apples to ripe tomatos. Moderns have much more "splat" than WWII designs. Certain US ones are over three times more powerful than their WWII counterparts.

Yes, Neil, a grenade, even a WWII grenade can cause injury out to 200m. Even 250m. Pieces of the casing and the fuse head can be blown out that far on a ballistic arc. If you are so unlucky as to be standing 219m away from an exploding grenade pointed just so when it detonates, and that chunk of metal comes down on your unprotected head, you will have a bad, non-fatal day. However, if you are wearing a helmet, it is just a thunk, And if it hits your shoulder, its a bit of a punch but not likely to leave a mark. Or much of one. One of the reasons grenade ranges are always 300m off the main drag and helmets are required when entering the range.

Been there many a time and been thunked a couple of times, got the bragging rights.




crushingleeek -> RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (12/6/2008 3:25:36 AM)

In CC, I prefer ramping up "super weapons," without diluting their deadly effects (mortars, heavy artillery).

At the same time, I think terrains "in cover," fox holes, trenches, rubble, should provide even more protection.

So the effect is, if mortars/artillery are zeroed in on moving units, it will mess them up badly.
But if the units are well dug-in, they can take a very intense pounding with little physical damage, but great psychological damage.

I like the "superweapons" to be well-represented in the game because in WWII, 80% of all combat casualties were inflicted by artillery!




TheReal_Pak40 -> RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (12/6/2008 5:33:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crushingleeek

At the same time, I think terrains "in cover," fox holes, trenches, rubble, should provide even more protection.

So the effect is, if mortars/artillery are zeroed in on moving units, it will mess them up badly.
But if the units are well dug-in, they can take a very intense pounding with little physical damage, but great psychological damage.


I completely agree. I've read so many instances where dug in infantry survived some vicious artillery.

quote:



I like the "superweapons" to be well-represented in the game because in WWII, 80% of all combat casualties were inflicted by artillery!


Yes, but most of that 80% was not caused in close combat. It was artillery called in on targets that were at a distance. Calling in artillery within 200-300 yards of your own men was rare and quite dangerous, not the norm. And, of course, it was no where near as accurate or as quick as it is in the Close Combat series.




crushingleeek -> RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (12/6/2008 6:57:36 AM)

fair enough.

Since I love artillery, though, I am unlikely to stop making a case for it!!! and more of it!

So since pak raises a good point, wouldn't it be nice to have field artillery battalions show up on the grand strategic map, just like regiments, and at the beginning of end turn, allow the player to assign a fire order for this field artillery battalion by clicking on an adjacent map (depending on the range of the artillery units, it may be further or shorter).

Then after the movements phase are issued, you can see the results of the artillery by clicking on that soldier tab of the enemy. You can also click on the map where these enemy forces are, and see that damage and cratering of the terrain has taken place.

Of course, if they are dug in, casualties will be less, but force morale will suffer none the less.


Artillery is one of the biggest aspects of WWII and should be very well-represented in WWII games!
Especially, especially for the Americans.




nietsche -> RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (12/7/2008 3:58:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy

quote:

ORIGINAL: nietsche

[]...Overall tanks were very powerful and frustratingly unreliable mechanical devices. Anyone ever driven an 1940's built car and found them to be a picture of mechanical excellence?

That's a pretty simple generalization, sorry.

Quite true ... As with all generalisations, they do not universally apply. I was mainly trying to make the point that we should not be expecting the kind of reliability that(for instance) I get from a diesel VW van these days from the tanks that we are seeing in this simulation of equipment from over 60 years ago.





Pvt_Grunt -> RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (12/7/2008 7:23:24 AM)

I'm with PM on the strat map. I think the red/green filters should be more subtle. Personal taste only, of course - nothing to do with the gameplay.

I liked the CC4 strat map (non scrolling) better than the CC5 (scrolling) map. The best CC5 strat map ever was Bloody Omaha. GJS 4.4 was good too, but CC4 was the best.

The strat maps' goal is to make the player aware of the territory gained / lost. How do I explain it, the main difference between CC3/ CC4-5 is the visual representation of the battle field. When you see your red / green colour marching across the screen it is visual feedback for all the hard fought battles.

But when the filters are on they make the map too hard to see, all the areas of the strat map look the same, so you lose that visual feedback, which lessens the game. I think it would be better if you could zoom to any part of the map and instantly recognize where you are.

Sorry to be so critical, it is still a better strat map than I could make (believe me I've tried [:@])




Nomada_Firefox -> RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (12/7/2008 3:29:33 PM)

quote:

I liked the CC4 strat map (non scrolling) better than the CC5 (scrolling) map. The best CC5 strat map ever was Bloody Omaha. GJS 4.4 was good too, but CC4 was the best.

Yes but it was smaller and probably you could not add 64 maps on it.
I think that the new sta needs one zoom because if not you can not make one good strategy.

But why are you telling us this here? [&:] have you fear from to make a new thread? and I think that someone made it sometime ago.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.0703125