|
SkyStrike -> RE: The bug thread. (8/5/2010 11:01:15 PM)
|
PLAYING 5.60.01b
I consider myself a huge CC2 fan, Ive played hundreds of games with it and probably will continue to do so(my CC2ABTF setup: 2.0b+3.4+new sounds+FFLcamos+1600x900reso hack). Playing LSAA feels like switching from a nice, good looking girl, who is great in bed and intelligent though loyal, friendly and totally infatuated to you -- into a good looking dumb girl with bumpy fake boobs and bad teeth, who stubbornly holds the view that holocaust never happened..
I recognize the fact that LSAA is not CC2, however I am not convinced that the leading builders of LSAA are CC2 players or even have played more than 20 battles of it to ever have arrived at the personal realizations and insights of some superior CC2 features compared to f.e. CC3-5. Also I am not convinced that they really play AI campaigns over and over again, but rather short battles etc where the most annoying features might not come out so obvious.
I have written many posts where I have tried to bring forth the inadequacies of LSAA. Here are just some more thoughts and bugs et cetera. Please don't be offended by my posts, my intentions are for the good of one and all.
-----
BUG: When playing Campaigns with 1920x1080 resolution on a 16:9 monitor all goes fine until the map NIJMEGEN comes to play. The map is small and it gets zoomed in and stretched, probably the game trying to change resolution to smaller and selecting a non 16:9 one. When manually changed to 1600x900 though and restarted though all seems fine, but I find it inconvenient.
CONFUSION: I have previously reported many faults with portable AT teams and weapons such as PIAT but now I write about panzerfausts. I have not managed to ever get any of my troops to fire one off. Unlike in CC2 where a team with panzerfaust(s) has heightened AT values and gets a green target reticule to a tank within range, apart from the forcepool there is no evidense of panzerfausts. The troops always get black targetting circles on tanks from any range or position or angle. Ive sneaked behind tanks, to the side, been in high buildings, ruins, open ground, running, sneaking, ambushing. All troops with panzerfausts seem utterly incapable of employing them against the enemy.
ANNOYING: I somewhat understand the current feature of teams disappearing or getting reinforced. However I do not support it. Rather have the teams stay and have a reinforce feature by points etc. Losing 50% of men usually means losing whole strength a battle group. Also losing important weaponry like MGs, portable AT weapons etc, just because 1-3 guys have died etc. Obviously this would matter less if the battles were more large scale but when its usually about 2-6 teams it really counts a lot if you lose whole teams just for losing some men.
MORE ANNOYING: Force Morale. Battle ends when force morale gets too low setting needs to be altered. If the enemy has just one ersatz team, it is able to hold a whole map against a full armored battlegroup. Germans will lose only 2-3 VLs, just because their morale ends. Their hidden ghost counterparts take on godly superpowers making the whole allied spearhead utterly incapable of advancing against a half dead half-team. SOLUTION: Force morale should take into account the current force of the defender against the attacker force strength ratio. If the ratio is like in this case high, f.e. 2rqp vs 700 rqp, then the germans should lose the whole map. Atleast against BO groups.
WOULD BE NICE, if when attacking with two BGs to one map, one would be able to employ the full roster. It makes no sense that the other BG has to sit it out in the background, when it is obvious that in real battle it would ofcourse be deployed. Also in real strategic attacking one would seek to surround and attack from multiple directions. If on the same strategic turn two BGs move to attack the same one map from two different maps/directions, it should have some benefits..
MORE: Teams seem safest in open ground, the lower the better. If one goes into a building, let alone a high building, it becomes super vulnerable. I still cannot understand why it has been programmed so that a team hiding and lying down on the middle of a 4th story floor can still get hit from ANY RANGE from ground level. A ground-level team very close to the building seems as capable of inflicting casualties as a team farther away. Also would be nice if some of matrix developers actually has battle training/fire-arms experience, which I doubt, as in urban battle when a fire team uses a house, it does not deploy on the window like a target with no brains, but it deploys on the back of the room or from the side of the window and selects a narrow firing lane to it's selected target and carefully moves to another firing position to deploy to another narrow firing lane to fire at another target. It is not like a western movie where John Wayne etc stands/sits on the window where everyone from outside can take easy shots at him. Rather the smart soldier deploys himself so that only troops directly visible to him from the narrow firing lane of his choosing can fire back at him, usually when it is too late for them to do so anyway. Then he relocates to another relatively safe position.
In LSAA tries too much realism and utterly fails in achieving any. Teams deploy like John Wayne on the windows, or if they are on walls they cannot fire outside at all. No matter if they lie on the middle of the floor on 4th story, they still can be killed from ground level.
In CC2 this was SIMULATED by teams always being able to fire outside from a building, but being in relative cover, simulating intelligent individual positioning of smart soldiers positioning themselves to narrow firing lanes and moving positions to fire other targets.
What takes seconds in real life takes minutes in LSAA, soldiers sitting on the windows getting killed / soldiers UTTERLY UNABLE to fire at all / soldiers crawling around trying to reposition all the time and just milling about not sure what to do.
SOLUTION: Make elevation matter, so that close teams from ground level cannot reach the middle rooms. (just like CC2)
SOLUTION: Make teams always see outside, no matter walls/windows. (just like CC2)
SOLUTION: Make soldiers always take as much/little damage, no matter doors/windows/walls. (just like CC2)
MORE: Firing range seems inconsistent/wrong. If any of Matrix developers have ever been to a firing range, lets say 150m, 100m, 25m, 50m, 100m, 200m, 300m, or tried to take shots at 500m or 1km and seeing their results, they surely would have a good idea of the trajectory of a bullet, and the utter ease of hitting targets at 0-150m. Lets take examples:
I can hit a cardboard target with a pistol from 100m. Usual pistol accurate range being 25m. It is possible with an elevated shot. However: LSAA soldiers seem incapable of hitting with a rifle.
I can hit a 7.62x39 AR bullet in a target 500m away, 150m being impossible to miss the target board, even with such a "small punch" round. LSAA soldiers are mostly incapable of hitting a 7.62x54(which can fire at 1km!) rifle shots at 150m.. which would be understandable under fire, but even from ambush it seems hard for them to hit stationary targets..
The ease of firing at stationary and erect targets at short ranges is not my point however.
My point is that it seems to make no difference whether the range is 50m or 500m, which would be a HUGE difference in reality, even when only looking at the recoil caused scattering of rounds, that the smallest error in direction or elevation would become HUGE when the target it farther away. Like calculating planetary moon rocket trajectory angles into space, it becomes hard to hit a lying target that is taking cover.
In LSAA any MG is capable of huge devastation no matter cover/range. Any rifle soldier is UNcapable of landing simple shots. That is my point.
Matrix prejudice against Sturmgeschütz III G? LSAA seems to really play Stug3G down in my humble opinion. Finnish StuGIIIG crews had great success against soviet T34s etc in WW2 continuation war of the Finnish theatre of war. They used big tree logs on the sides to make portable AT devices less effective and molded big concrete blocks on the bases of the turret for extra protection. They repainted and camouflaged and customized every StuGIIIG before deploying them to frontline duties. All crews were thoroughly trained and accomplished great things, like many Finns in general. The targetting speed and range and accuracy of a StuGIIIG was great, and the 7.5 cm StuK 40 L/48 main gun had good penetrating power and accuracy against enemy armor.
In LSAA however Ive had a StuG fire multiple closerange hits on ShermanV "tommyboilers" without success, while the Shermans were looking/shooting elsewhere. Those LSAA Shermans however are capable of popping out StuGs while on the move, and insta-hitting them to destruction with such an ease from much greater ranges, that it is a wonder that they dont use ShermanV tanks instead of Abrams today... Somehow its like CounterStrike game etc where people who are bunnyhopping are getting more kills/less hits, where it should be otherwise. Surely a starionary selfpropelled tank destroyer should have considerable advantage to a tommyboiler "on the move".
I think there is some hidden dislike against StuGIIIG's prowess here, whether unaware or not.
"Crew training was very demanding and for example gunners had to write their names on a sheet of paper hanging on a tree with a pencil attached to the gun barrel using the gun aiming wheels."*
*= http://www.achtungpanzer.com/sturmgeschutz-iii-sturmgeschutz-iv.htm
[image]local://upfiles/35327/DA38408148CA4D36BBDA09AD10D25BD2.jpg[/image]
|
|
|
|
