RE: List of Changes I would like to see

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: List of Changes I would like to see

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Close Combat Series >> Close Combat: Last Stand Arnhem >> Tech Support >> RE: List of Changes I would like to see

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: List of Changes I would like to see - 11/26/2010 2:52:12 AM

emperor peter

Posts: 72
Joined: 11/18/2009
From: Genk, Belgium
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tejszd

Mystic_Snake for your soldiers use Move instead of Move Fast. With Move Fast they will move onto the element(s) that allow them to move the fastest.

I'll try that but I find move too slow in most situations. Especially when I'm racing to get a bridge secured.

I now put a waypoint every 50m in the ditch beside the road. That works, until they get shot at that is. Then I have to do it over again.

(in reply to Tejszd)

Post #: 31

RE: List of Changes I would like to see - 11/26/2010 3:02:07 AM

STIENER

Posts: 857
Joined: 1/7/2001
From: Vancouver, Canada
Status: offline

Tejszd
what are your other thoughts on the above posts?? we need input.

(in reply to Tejszd)

Post #: 32

RE: List of Changes I would like to see - 11/26/2010 8:11:13 AM

Q.M

Posts: 1823
Joined: 3/13/2003
From: Townsville QLD Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: STIENER

thanks QM....couple more questions
1] do you find that the guns do not HIDE well in LSA? in buildings and woods and hedges etc or not hide at all?
2] do you find that 50 mm and less size guns do not find many large buildings to hide in in LSA
3] do you find that guns are easily spotted while there in an ambush situation?
4] do you find guns less usefull in LSA than in other CC games..WAR....GJS etc

Hi Steiner, sorry been away on business.

See if I can answer these for you.

1. As I stated previously, I dont really expose my guns to any front obs or fire. I do find that on ambush you can hide faily well. After the first shot is fired and there is a direct LOF/LOS to your gun then you will be seen. Try this. Front on, sit on ambush, tgt, shoot, sit tight on ambush. Try the same in a defilade posn. On defend your guns will always been seen. Hedges and woods can really only provide cover from view.
Guns have never hidden well in CC as the human player against the AI. The AI on the other hand has always been capable of concealing it's guns. Is the AI cheating? Sorry, don�t know. H2H, I have never had a problem against a human player. Always a good match up for what CC is built for.

2. In buildings. Ok. Buildings along with all the rest of the terrain and glittery you see on the map is comprised of coded elements. Each of these elements is a certain size and takes up room obviously. The sprite also takes up a certain amount of space as well. I�m not doing a very good job explaining this, suffice to say if there is an interior element, say a wall, the building is narrow or the building is on an angle then all the coded elements need to take up space to provide the correct element in the correct location. The elements are large and very blocky and to consume a large area of space. So the building may look large but there may be elements in the way that block the sprite from being placed in there. I hope that makes sense. Below is an image of a coded map that may help explain that for you.

3. No not really. If you expose yourself by firing then yes you will be spotted. If you expect not to be seen on the edge of woods or in high grass, you will be. Some of those tankers have a sharp eye even buttoned up! Not a concise explanation I know but if you want to confront armour head on then you will pay a price. Enfilade is the answer.

4. No I don�t. Employ or learn to employ them correctly (not saying that you don�t know how to mind you) and you will see what I am talking about. It�s not a super weapon and like I said before, don�t stake all on the toss of the gun coin.

Hope that helps.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to STIENER)

Post #: 33

RE: List of Changes I would like to see - 11/26/2010 9:20:10 AM

STIENER

Posts: 857
Joined: 1/7/2001
From: Vancouver, Canada
Status: offline

thanks for the info QM......interesting. i see your points and they all make sense and your gun instruction probably will work to a point. but thats not how a/t guns were always historically deployed. its a way to make them work in LSA. historically most a/t guns, particulary german had the ability to destroy tanks at range from the fromt......with NO problem at all......german 88 and 75 mm, allied 6pdr with apds and 17 pdr. you must realize this?
did you ever play GJS????

IMO as i stated above guns dont work near as well in LSA as all the other CC's......CC5 & GJS, WAR, and TLD. i have been playing CC since CC2 and no newbie to this.

the german doctrine for example of the sword and the shield, which is attack with tanks and then have them fall back thru an a/t gun screen to draw the enemy armour onto it, wouldnt / doesnt work in LSA ..not even close. and i know that some of those a/t guns would be taking defilade shots even rear shots too, but not always. and that the idea of a dug in and camoflaged a/t gun being seen by a tank or anyone else after firing 1 or 2 rds is absurd in most cases. theres tons of 1st hand accounts of this.
it does work in GJS........thats why i asked you if you ever played GJS.

my argument is that in other CC games a/t guns work as a/t guns should. they work the way you suggest too, but thats not how they were always deployed.
in GJS you could deploy 3 or 4 6 pdr a/t guns in a corn field in an a/t gun screen and have them take out german armour at will and NOT be seen doing it. [ they do hide well in some of the CC games, i dont no what your thinkinf of? ] i had it happen to me and by me time and time again. the guns were very hard to spot and were deadly..as they should be.there supposed to be feared not laughed at. a/t guns etc in LSA are a joke.
in GJS you didnt have to baby sit them with taking ambush on and off so they werent seen when the shot......you could and it helped but it wasnt nessicary in most cases.

so im saying this in this forum because i also no that the makers of LSA have played all the CC games before this and obviously designed them and they know too that the a/t guns can be tweaked to work better and hide better.
i know this because i have seen that the guns can work better in this Game with this game engine. what i cant figure out is why everyone else is happy to let this go and just look for ways to make them sort of work

for the record......i never play the AI....it always sucks. i only play H2H, so my experiences are with human players in CC

so ill ask you the question again QM......did you / do you play GJS?

< Message edited by STIENER -- 11/26/2010 9:24:25 AM >

(in reply to Q.M)

Post #: 34

RE: List of Changes I would like to see - 11/26/2010 10:26:18 AM

Q.M

Posts: 1823
Joined: 3/13/2003
From: Townsville QLD Australia
Status: offline

Sorry. I thought you were asking how/could/would/do guns would work in LSA.

quote
1] do you find that the guns do not HIDE well in LSA? in buildings and woods and hedges etc or not hide at all?
2] do you find that 50 mm and less size guns do not find many large buildings to hide in in LSA
3] do you find that guns are easily spotted while there in an ambush situation?
4] do you find guns less usefull in LSA than in other CC games..WAR....GJS etc
unquote

I was citing the factual use and employment of guns in RL and applying them to LSA....as I was under the impression as to what that was what you were enquiring of.

Have I played GJS? Yes. Oh, and I work with one of the devs on the team as well. I thought I was replying to your questions as you required. Obviously you have different concerns and I am not answering these in the light you seek so I do apologies.

Happy hunting.

Hooroo.

(in reply to STIENER)

Post #: 35

RE: List of Changes I would like to see - 11/27/2010 8:31:17 AM

STIENER

Posts: 857
Joined: 1/7/2001
From: Vancouver, Canada
Status: offline

QM
i was asking how/could/would/do guns would work in LSA AND i was trying to get you to tell me if they work the way YOU think they they should in LSA. i would say that your happy with the way they work?

in my reply post i was trying to tell you that i really dont think they work like they should and i was giving you reasons why.

i really appriciate the reply's and the explanations....thank you.

(in reply to Q.M)

Post #: 36

RE: List of Changes I would like to see - 11/28/2010 3:34:47 AM

hikarumba

Posts: 2
Joined: 11/25/2010
Status: offline

Thanks for the explanations on how to use the AT guns. I will take them seriously.

I've had AT guns etc in a number of situations. I've tried some of the things that you have described where I set them well back away from the action hoping that something of value will cross their line of sight. I've only ever made one kill with one of them. In fact as a last resort I've placed them up front and exposed so that I could maybe get one or two shots off - minimally they were useful as fodder. I'm sorry to say but I just don't think that they are worth the point cost or the slot cost. Perhaps with more practice I might change my mind but currently I'm a bit skeptical.

On the other hand the panzershrek and bazooka teams have been very successful, they seem about right. They are mobile, sneaky and cheap to buy. I prefer them over the AT guns. I've had some good kills with them.

I do like the suggestion that I could put them on ambush, shoot and then put them on ambush again. If this really works then wouldn't it be better if the Guns just did that on their own?

Thanks.

(in reply to Q.M)

Post #: 37

RE: List of Changes I would like to see - 11/28/2010 3:39:27 AM

Andrew Williams

Posts: 6116
Joined: 1/8/2001
From: Australia
Status: offline

If everything worked optimally with no user input... there would be no need for user input, and what fun is that?

Now if the AI controlled player did that.......

_____________________________

(in reply to hikarumba)

Post #: 38

RE: List of Changes I would like to see - 11/28/2010 3:44:58 AM

STIENER

Posts: 857
Joined: 1/7/2001
From: Vancouver, Canada
Status: offline

i gotta say andrew...im not having any fun with this....getting seriously frustrated....zero imput from Steve and Oddball the guys who COULD change some of this stuff.
cant wait for Carthartes's TLD GJS......now theres a game worth playing...i hope

< Message edited by STIENER -- 11/28/2010 3:45:22 AM >

(in reply to Andrew Williams)

Post #: 39

RE: List of Changes I would like to see - 11/28/2010 3:53:52 AM

Andrew Williams

Posts: 6116
Joined: 1/8/2001
From: Australia
Status: offline

Then you're starting to get the idea of how I feel?

_____________________________

(in reply to STIENER)

Post #: 40

RE: List of Changes I would like to see - 11/28/2010 4:12:13 AM

STIENER

Posts: 857
Joined: 1/7/2001
From: Vancouver, Canada
Status: offline

we need to band together andrew and demand some action.....get more people to post......give me a hand with my posts..agree or disagree.

(in reply to Andrew Williams)

Post #: 41

RE: List of Changes I would like to see - 11/28/2010 2:12:13 PM

xe5

Posts: 783
Joined: 5/3/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: STIENER
i gotta say andrew...im not having any fun with this....getting seriously frustrated....zero imput from Steve and Oddball the guys who COULD change some of this stuff.

That 'stuff' is just data, so anybody COULD change some of it.

(in reply to STIENER)

Post #: 42

RE: List of Changes I would like to see - 11/29/2010 2:43:35 PM

RD Oddball

Posts: 4836
Joined: 2/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: STIENER

...zero imput from Steve and Oddball the guys who COULD change some of this stuff.

Actually that's not been true in either your case or Andrews. We've responded to most if not all of your posts. If for your part you mean specifically this thread then it's because this past weekend was a holiday weekend here in the states so we were both out spending time with our families. I don't have anything new to add to this topic other than what I've already told you about AT guns. I think they're fine. The input is good and I hope to see more. Some interesting perspectives that run the gamut but I don't see a consensus yet that would contradict how things are set up in the game. If there are enough people that speak up to indicate they don't like it as it is we'll consider changing it.

And as Mick points out it's data and you are welcome to create a mod that tweaks things to your liking. If folks could see it in practice that might be the best way to build consensus to get it implemented as a standard part of the game.

< Message edited by RD_Oddball -- 11/29/2010 2:52:51 PM >

(in reply to STIENER)

Post #: 43

RE: List of Changes I would like to see - 11/29/2010 8:54:40 PM

STIENER

Posts: 857
Joined: 1/7/2001
From: Vancouver, Canada
Status: offline

hi Oddball......hope you had a good holiday.

you have responded to most of my posts as i think you should as a moderator / matrix guy. i think you gentlemen should respond to all the posts, even to say ya..i hear ya. this particular post has been getting hot and heavy lately and i think i make very valid points on the a/t gun and flak guns......there a joke. they should be feared like in GJS. mortors are more powerful than a/t guns.

i dont really have the PC skills to change data and i dont want to change data......i dont think as a buyer of this game i need to change data.........as a buyer of this game i expect the game to work as in prevoius versions of the game. is that expectaion too much to ask? thats why i BUY the Damn games! you guys need too make it work thats your job isnt it??
right now as you can see from the lack of support.....players just lost interest and went on to / back to other stuff and its killin this CC game.
i cant believe you said the a/t guns are fine.......there really bad...you cant hide them, there spotted right away,the entrenchements dont do anything for them, the mortors kill thim easily, and mg fire wipes them out in seconds, the playiblility blows....come on you played GJS...you KNOW what they can be like.

cant wait to play YOU on the LSA battle field.......you can have ALL the a/t guns you want.......ill take a couple of mortors.....i wonder who will win??

and for the record ....were trying QM's tacktics as above......LMAO.....there not working either......858 m and the flak crew was cut down like cheese.....

(in reply to RD Oddball)

Post #: 44

RE: List of Changes I would like to see - 11/29/2010 9:56:14 PM

RD Oddball

Posts: 4836
Joined: 2/10/2007
Status: offline

Excellent holiday, thanks.

I'm actually not a moderator. I'm project lead for CC projects. And yes we hear you. Can't really add anything to any of your posts I've seen since my earlier replies that isn't repeating what we've already said. Anything I've not replied to I don't have any comment about.

(in reply to STIENER)

Post #: 45

RE: List of Changes I would like to see - 11/29/2010 11:11:27 PM

e_barkmann

Posts: 1307
Joined: 4/18/2000
From: Adelaide, Australia
Status: offline

RD_oddball - any news/eta on an updated patch/beta release?

cheers

_____________________________

Scourge of War multiplayer group

http://steamcommunity.com/groups/sowwaterloo

(in reply to RD Oddball)

Post #: 46

RE: List of Changes I would like to see - 11/30/2010 3:05:17 AM

STIENER

Posts: 857
Joined: 1/7/2001
From: Vancouver, Canada
Status: offline

thanks Oddball......sounds like project lead can pretty much do what he wants. perhaps change things for the better.

ive pretty much given up here. no one else is posting becuase they lost interest after reading these posts... because of the fact you guys wont do anything to help make the game better dispite our play testing it.

ive been on GR for the last few weeks and maybe 1 in 10 is trying to play LSA...everyone else is playing CC5, TLD, and GJS and even CC2 for gods sake........
ill say it one last time........the a/t guns and mortors dont work.

good luck with trying to make CC an onging game.....cause LSA as is just dont cut it. im not sure if ill be putting my money out again in the future for CC....if you wont listen and change it, it nots worth the money.

IM DONE

< Message edited by STIENER -- 11/30/2010 3:08:21 AM >

(in reply to e_barkmann)

Post #: 47

RE: List of Changes I would like to see - 12/2/2010 2:47:26 PM

zon

Posts: 470
Joined: 11/21/2007
Status: offline

CC soldiers are cowards.

The latest CC coding has soldiers hitting the ground under fire, which is fine. No more crawl of death I suppose. But what is happening now is soldiers are simply walking or running away. Scenario A: A platoon runs into an enemy platoon suddenly in a wooded area and comes under fire. Your soldiers don't hit the ground and start firing back; No they walk away and get shot in the back. Scenario B. Several units are ordered to attack a position and come under fire. Some of the units freeze, others advance and some just run away, passing the tougher soldiers on the way. You get this mass of sprites moving all over each other in some kind of discombobulated orgy.

Yeah, good luck getting that bridge before the plunger drops in two minutes.

Some might argue this is an attempt at realism and you're not being a good commander if your troops are getting f#$@@ed up like this, but I don't agree. The threshold for soldiers wimping out is just too low at the moment.

End rant.

(in reply to STIENER)

Post #: 48

RE: List of Changes I would like to see - 12/3/2010 3:41:33 PM

RD Oddball

Posts: 4836
Joined: 2/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chris Merchant

RD_oddball - any news/eta on an updated patch/beta release?

cheers

Hey Chris, Matrix has it and are processing it into an installer. Hopefully soon. They're very busy with many releases at the moment as you can imagine.

quote:

thanks Oddball......sounds like project lead can pretty much do what he wants.

Unfortunately no.

Steiner we certainly don't like to see anyone disappointed. We feel we've been responsive in looking at these issues you've identified as needing looked at and we'll continue to do so each and every time you bring them up. In order to be able to change something we need objective proof that it's broken and a way to reproduce that in order to fix it. So far the detailed testing that has been done is indicating that things are operating as they should be. So the math is proving that mortars are operating correctly and acceptably. As I'd said above in order to consider changing something that is operating as expected we need enough response about it that indicates most people would like to see it changed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: zon

CC soldiers are cowards.

The latest CC coding has soldiers hitting the ground under fire, which is fine. No more crawl of death I suppose. But what is happening now is soldiers are simply walking or running away. Scenario A: A platoon runs into an enemy platoon suddenly in a wooded area and comes under fire. Your soldiers don't hit the ground and start firing back; No they walk away and get shot in the back. Scenario B. Several units are ordered to attack a position and come under fire. Some of the units freeze, others advance and some just run away, passing the tougher soldiers on the way. You get this mass of sprites moving all over each other in some kind of discombobulated orgy.

Yeah, good luck getting that bridge before the plunger drops in two minutes.

Some might argue this is an attempt at realism and you're not being a good commander if your troops are getting f#$@@ed up like this, but I don't agree. The threshold for soldiers wimping out is just too low at the moment.

End rant.

Thanks for the feedback on this zon. You said "The latest CC coding..." so do you mean release 21b? If your comments are more than getting it off your chest i.e. a rant please post specific situations you've seen this happen in so we can take a look at it to see if it's operating differently than expected. Please provide enough detail to reproduce it. The reaction of soldiers had been tweaked in the initial release to make them less likely to go to ground and some of the AI behaviors modified to improve this but nothing has changed since the gold release, that I'm aware of, with respect to this.

(in reply to e_barkmann)

Post #: 49

RE: List of Changes I would like to see - 12/3/2010 4:23:12 PM

zon

Posts: 470
Joined: 11/21/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RD_Oddball

quote:

ORIGINAL: zon

CC soldiers are cowards.

The latest CC coding has soldiers hitting the ground under fire, which is fine. No more crawl of death I suppose. But what is happening now is soldiers are simply walking or running away. Scenario A: A platoon runs into an enemy platoon suddenly in a wooded area and comes under fire. Your soldiers don't hit the ground and start firing back; No they walk away and get shot in the back. Scenario B. Several units are ordered to attack a position and come under fire. Some of the units freeze, others advance and some just run away, passing the tougher soldiers on the way. You get this mass of sprites moving all over each other in some kind of discombobulated orgy.

Yeah, good luck getting that bridge before the plunger drops in two minutes.

Some might argue this is an attempt at realism and you're not being a good commander if your troops are getting f#$@@ed up like this, but I don't agree. The threshold for soldiers wimping out is just too low at the moment.

End rant.

Thanks for the feedback on this zon. You said "The latest CC coding..." so do you mean release 21b? If your comments are more than getting it off your chest i.e. a rant please post specific situations you've seen this happen in so we can take a look at it to see if it's operating differently than expected. Please provide enough detail to reproduce it. The reaction of soldiers had been tweaked in the initial release to make them less likely to go to ground and some of the AI behaviors modified to improve this but nothing has changed since the gold release, that I'm aware of, with respect to this.

I'm talking since TLD, and all the time. Surely you, and others, have observed that soldiers chicken out damn easily. Some running away, bunching up with others on the advance. It's ridiculous.

(in reply to RD Oddball)

Post #: 50

RE: List of Changes I would like to see - 12/3/2010 7:07:08 PM

xe5

Posts: 783
Joined: 5/3/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zon
...soldiers chicken out damn easily. Some running away, bunching up with others on the advance. It's ridiculous.

Then its equally ridiculous how easily the player, by a twitch of the mouse, can command those chicken soldiers to 'man up' again. If he cares to, with a modest amount of effort, in mere moments a player can sacrifice an entire BG assaulting an MG across open terrain. And if the player doesnt care to work that hard herding his chickens forward, he can select the 'Always Obey Orders' option.

54 freaking cowards who kept chickening out because a few bullets were buzzing by.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to zon)

Post #: 51

RE: List of Changes I would like to see - 12/3/2010 7:49:50 PM

Andrew Williams

Posts: 6116
Joined: 1/8/2001
From: Australia
Status: offline

My own opinion..

In the H2H GC I'm playing at the moment my men seem to assault quite successfully.... MG34/42 are crushed under the bodies of the fallen men.

Yeterday had 2 teams run all the way from the Bridge at Best all the way to the buildings in the north under constant fire. i did not have to give them additional orders.

_____________________________

(in reply to xe5)

Post #: 52

RE: List of Changes I would like to see - 12/3/2010 7:56:31 PM

RD Oddball

Posts: 4836
Joined: 2/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zon

I'm talking since TLD, and all the time. Surely you, and others, have observed that soldiers chicken out damn easily. Some running away, bunching up with others on the advance. It's ridiculous.

Sorry I thought since you'd posted in the LSA forums that was the title we were talking about. Not to perpetuate the off-topic conversation but I know that based on customer feedback Steve addressed this for TLD and there is a good balance between realism and playability.

Having recently tested some of the soon to be released updates I didn't notice anything that indicated it's been changed. In fact it operated quite well imo. I found that when I made numbskull mistakes (like running troops through the open in front of an MG) that they behaved just as you'd expect. They hit the dirt and looked for the nearest cover if my poor leadership choices didn't cause them to get shot down in the initial onslaught. As we've always suggested use smart tactics, take advantage of available cover and terrain and always keep a command team within command radius to keep troops moving if you need to make risky moves. Then cross your fingers and hope you can get through it with minimal losses.

Even with all that said, if you post specific cases, in the TLD forums, we'll look at them to make sure it's operating within the expected range.

(in reply to zon)

Post #: 53

RE: List of Changes I would like to see - 12/3/2010 8:35:32 PM

zon

Posts: 470
Joined: 11/21/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RD_Oddball

quote:

ORIGINAL: zon

I'm talking since TLD, and all the time. Surely you, and others, have observed that soldiers chicken out damn easily. Some running away, bunching up with others on the advance. It's ridiculous.

Sorry I thought since you'd posted in the LSA forums that was the title we were talking about. Not to perpetuate the off-topic conversation but I know that based on customer feedback Steve addressed this for TLD and there is a good balance between realism and playability.

It's since TLD, but clearly I am concerned with LSA since I posted in this forum.

quote:

Having recently tested some of the soon to be released updates I didn't notice anything that indicated it's been changed. In fact it operated quite well imo. I found that when I made numbskull mistakes (like running troops through the open in front of an MG) that they behaved just as you'd expect. They hit the dirt and looked for the nearest cover if my poor leadership choices didn't cause them to get shot down in the initial onslaught. As we've always suggested use smart tactics, take advantage of available cover and terrain and always keep a command team within command radius to keep troops moving if you need to make risky moves. Then cross your fingers and hope you can get through it with minimal losses.

Even with all that said, if you post specific cases, in the TLD forums, we'll look at them to make sure it's operating within the expected range.

Again. I'm talking about LSA. I only mentioned TLD because that's when I noticed this phenom. If you need specific "cases" then my cause is lost since it's easily observed in any battle.

(in reply to RD Oddball)

Post #: 54

RE: List of Changes I would like to see - 12/3/2010 8:37:26 PM

Andrew Williams

Posts: 6116
Joined: 1/8/2001
From: Australia
Status: offline

But then.. if it were to be tweaked I would not advocate a tweak toward ducking earlier.... but againd personal opinion is that it works well now.

_____________________________

(in reply to zon)

Post #: 55

RE: List of Changes I would like to see - 12/3/2010 8:43:39 PM

zon

Posts: 470
Joined: 11/21/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: xe5

quote:

ORIGINAL: zon
...soldiers chicken out damn easily. Some running away, bunching up with others on the advance. It's ridiculous.

Then its equally ridiculous how easily the player, by a twitch of the mouse, can command those chicken soldiers to 'man up' again. If he cares to, with a modest amount of effort, in mere moments a player can sacrifice an entire BG assaulting an MG across open terrain. And if the player doesnt care to work that hard herding his chickens forward, he can select the 'Always Obey Orders' option.

54 freaking cowards who kept chickening out because a few bullets were buzzing by.

Pretty extreme example there. I'm not asking for Russian front charges. Cowards are just showing up too often under light fire. There is just no way you would frequently see soldiers running off through the ranks of their comrades who remain on the advance. Or soldiers turning around and getting shot in the back at the first hint of an engagement with the enemy.

quote:

And if the player doesnt care to work that hard herding his chickens forward, he can select the 'Always Obey Orders' option.

Or he could play something else.

(in reply to xe5)

Post #: 56

RE: List of Changes I would like to see - 12/4/2010 1:29:07 AM

STIENER

Posts: 857
Joined: 1/7/2001
From: Vancouver, Canada
Status: offline

thanks Zon for jumping in with your 2 cents. Mick, its always good to have you berate players who FINALLY come on here to express there opinion

i find its ok and its not ok......some times it works as expected sometimes you go WTF?? but i guess IMO the soldiers waffle too much when they get under just a few shots from the enemy.......there is a big difference between getting caught in open under an MG 42 and having a few rifle rds come at you and thats what i see...the few rifle rounds and they dive for the ground or run away. but i also no after Oddballs comments [ nice to see you Jim ] that there will be no changes. we few who post are falling on deaf ears. i cant for the life of me figure out where the thousands of other players who bought LSA went? maybe back to GJS..........

Zon.........whats your opinion on the survivability of a/t guns??? do you think they hide well too? id REALLY like to hear your opinion of this.

< Message edited by STIENER -- 12/4/2010 1:33:37 AM >

(in reply to zon)

Post #: 57

RE: List of Changes I would like to see - 12/4/2010 6:35:40 AM

zon

Posts: 470
Joined: 11/21/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: STIENER

Zon.........whats your opinion on the survivability of a/t guns??? do you think they hide well too? id REALLY like to hear your opinion of this.

Do they hide well? If you are referencing whether they remain unseen by the enemy in a realistic way, I'd have to watch for that and get back to you. As to recent posts about their vulnerability, I believe I chimed in somewhere to say I tend to use snipers to wipe out Flak guns. Nuff said.

(in reply to STIENER)

Post #: 58

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Close Combat Series >> Close Combat: Last Stand Arnhem >> Tech Support >> RE: List of Changes I would like to see

Page: << < prev 1 [2]