RE: New Stuff (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Discontinued Games] >> Command Ops Series



Message


GoodGuy -> RE: New Stuff (8/14/2009 2:02:12 AM)

Some ppl need a hammer once in a while, like a wake-up call [;)]
[sm=00000028.gif]




Deathtreader -> RE: New Stuff (1/18/2010 1:25:45 AM)

Hi Arjuna,

This excerpt is from your reply to Adam Parker over on the General Forum. It's here so I wouldn't hijack that thread.

".....and the automated commitment of reserves"

This is the 1st of I've seen on this. Great news!! How (in brief) does it work?? Is it a new order of reserve or??

Thanks!

Rob.[:)]




Arjuna -> RE: New Stuff (1/18/2010 2:08:03 AM)

Rob,

The way this works is that it's fully automated. If the AI commander maintains a reserve for the attack ( most do ) and one of the assault guards breaks, then there is an assessment to see if the reserve should be committed. If so, the reserve will be ordered to launch its own attack to the objective. This in no way interferes with the user's ability to create their own reserves and commit them as they see fit. Doing so is strongly recommended.




Deathtreader -> RE: New Stuff (1/19/2010 12:12:00 AM)


I see..........

So would this reserve unit/formation have a defend order/task (for example) while it awaits the possibility of being called forward?? Would it also be subject to the "full" orders delay?? Or is there some other task/status with a "reduced" orders delay to account for the designated unit/formation being ready to go as soon as the commander passes the word to go.
I'm probably out in left field aren't I.......

Anyway, can't wait for release!!

Rob.[:)]




Arjuna -> RE: New Stuff (1/19/2010 2:42:01 AM)

You guessed it. Part of the attack planning doctrine is to create a reserve task. HQs no longer lead assaults, but instead are assigned to the reserve task, along with mortars and other units. How many other units depends on the aggro level for the attack. If this is high or there aren't many line units in the force group, then there may be no line units assigned to the reserve. In which case it won't be possible to commit them later. However, if the aggro level is normal or low there is a good chance there will be one or more line units in the reserve. If this is the case, then they can be committed if the need arrises. They only suffer minimum orders delay - ie 5 minutes, which is about the time it takes to relay a quick verbal order. It presumes they would be ready to go at a moments notice.




OlegHasky -> RE: New Stuff (1/19/2010 8:24:44 PM)

Hi cholos,

Following the main topic
Im on a roll with AA from some time.
Thing that jabbing has to be lack of detailed info about losses.

Correct me if Im wrong, but seems like
"Taking Casualties" note + ..an own calculations, are the only options given when comes to the disposal of "info gathering" during the gme

That could work with 2-3 Bns or so, but with handling the divisions it could blow or seriously damage the memmory trying to grasp all the specific losses.
Personaly I would like to know the specifics of my "under fire" unit losses at the specific situation, without preforming the substract from the memmory matrix.
A Log register would be usefull on how many guns, riflemeat, Mps.. trusks,cars, etc unit lost at the time after "Taking casualties" .

I saw earlier, that someone actualy tryied to bite this issue delikatly, but without any visual effect.
Wondering why such important Log wasnt created, and why without perspective to reflect it in anoter act of AA.






OlegHasky -> RE: New Stuff (1/19/2010 8:55:23 PM)

Second point will be on the so called "salle-rate" of AA.

from my presonal expierience..

The expierioence was with buying COTA )as for the first AA tittle).
The main objective was - lack of good gameplay trailer.

When I first encountered the tittle - rewievd some txts ,analized some screens, I knew its not an ordinary position.
Freshly jumped out from hardly pawned - DB Series , so the good engine look, and "inside" was mostly in my interest.

Ive encountered official gameplay vid, to dispel all the doubts. And hard to say it appeared to be rather an arogant, unreal, misleading scrap that only confused me.
I do not goin to lay on the guy that preformed this terrible dark suicidal ritual on AA. But the effort was devastating.
the "Gameplay" showed nothing of the COTAS real soul.

And only because eventualy I followed the initial inner-call, Ive decided to risk it and bough it after a peroid of mixed fealings after the oficial gameplay vid. Didnt missed this time, but sure the oficial gameplay vid is a poison kiss to COTA /AA

The Demo attached to the new bulge battle set could resolve this infected mushroom now.
But I feel COTA losted a lot attention because of that.





OlegHasky -> RE: New Stuff (1/19/2010 9:06:55 PM)

Ask for the PBM issue.

I think the combination of AA timed engine with a PBM system would made this game undefited




GoodGuy -> RE: New Stuff (1/20/2010 3:56:50 AM)

It'z zumvot hart to reet zis, but i zink I get zeh idea (GG with fake German accent).




simovitch -> RE: New Stuff (1/20/2010 4:57:31 AM)

Well, we really do need a resolution on the infected mushroom issue.




RayWolfe -> RE: New Stuff (1/20/2010 9:23:32 AM)

I thought that was fixed in the last patch.
... or was that the toadstool issue? I'm so confused. [:'(]




OlegHasky -> RE: New Stuff (1/23/2010 12:19:21 PM)

quote:

I thought that was fixed in the last patch.


Can you specify this?
Cause I dont see such log with 34151
Does the "last patch" = 34151?




simovitch -> RE: New Stuff (1/23/2010 11:14:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: OlegHasky

quote:

I thought that was fixed in the last patch.


Can you specify this?
Cause I dont see such log with 34151
Does the "last patch" = 34151?


Yes, the last patch for CotA was 34151.




moet -> RE: New Stuff (7/8/2010 4:47:55 PM)

I don't own COTA, but I'm interested to know how the player can see the differences between the two games.

Is there a summarized list somewhere, other than the list of features available on the Matrix Games web page, where the concrete impact of the new features is not obvious : "better route findings", "better formation movement code" or "advanced force allocation algorithms", etc. ?




James Sterrett -> RE: New Stuff (7/8/2010 5:42:23 PM)

I think the trouble, Moet, is that none of us have figured out a middle-level explanation, sitting between "it works a lot better" and "here's the nuts and bolts detail list".

I find that, having used BFTB, I keep tripping over myself in COTA, expecting features that aren't actually there.  They don't sound like much in a list, though.

It's sort of like looking at a two sports cars.  Both of them can go from A to B fast.  One of them is a lot more fun to drive.  Why?  Now suddenly we're discussing engine and steering and suspension systems, dashboard layouts, seat adjustments, blah blah blah.  And looking at the tech specs, why is it a better car....?  Each individual change seems small, but they add up.

Once the demo comes out, this may make more sense.  They are both sports cars, but BFTB handles better.




Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 5 [6]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.0234375