RE: Panzershrek change?

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: Panzershrek change?

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: The Longest Day >> RE: Panzershrek change?

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Panzershrek change? - 4/26/2011 1:00:37 AM

Andrew Williams

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

Also both refer to the latest patch so data should be the same... except one is tLD and the other LSA.

What, if any, differences could be effecting the outcome?

< Message edited by Andrew Williams -- 4/26/2011 1:02:35 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Iron Stringbean)

Post #: 31

RE: Panzershrek change? - 4/26/2011 4:31:09 AM

tigercub

Posts: 2004
Joined: 2/3/2003
From: brisbane oz
Status: offline

250m shots is crazy stuff ...but the MG42 was the fear of allied infantryman it was that good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxDauR7REPw&feature=relmfu

_____________________________

You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life

(in reply to Amgot)

Post #: 32

RE: BUG? AFV Sneak - 5/2/2011 6:09:29 AM

Iron Stringbean

Posts: 35
Joined: 8/3/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jagdhund

It seems the sneak command for vehicles has changed. It used to be that the command would cause the vehicle to back up. It still does that BUT at the end of the move the vehiicle turns to face the direction of travel thus exposing the rear armor to the threat. I used to be able to give a AFV a sneak command when there was a AT team attack and move of to other units and now I have to baby sit it. This is new in the beta patch. Can anyone confirm this for me? Great patch otherwise!! Thanks guys!

-Jagdhund

I just ran into this problem. A normal move order does the same thing.

(in reply to Jagdhund)

Post #: 33

RE: BUG? AFV Sneak - 5/2/2011 4:13:05 PM

RD Oddball

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

We'll look into it. Thanks. Any particular situation required to replicate this or will it occur any time a sneak command is issued on any type of terrain? Obviously the sneak command has to be issued more or less directly behind the vehicle but any details other than that?

(in reply to Iron Stringbean)

Post #: 34

RE: BUG? AFV Sneak - 5/4/2011 4:56:07 AM

Iron Stringbean

Posts: 35
Joined: 8/3/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RD_Oddball

We'll look into it. Thanks. Any particular situation required to replicate this or will it occur any time a sneak command is issued on any type of terrain? Obviously the sneak command has to be issued more or less directly behind the vehicle but any details other than that?

I started a quick battle to run some tests, and the results were inconclusive at best. Place a sneak order behind them, sometimes they would back up and stay straight, other times they would turn the wrong direction when the reached the destination, and other times they would turn right away like it was a move fast order. I tried different distances, different angles of the move order, and even left/right, vs. up/down, and I kept getting random results...

(in reply to RD Oddball)

Post #: 35

RE: BUG? AFV Sneak - 5/4/2011 2:15:42 PM

RD Oddball

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

Thanks Stringbean. That's likely why it slipped by testing. Was not easy to replicate but we were able to. It's slated for being fixed next chance we get.

(in reply to Iron Stringbean)

Post #: 36

RE: BUG? AFV Sneak - 5/6/2011 12:07:59 AM

Imperial Dane

Posts: 10
Joined: 5/3/2011
Status: offline

Just a curiosity, but has the Ai suddenly ceased to a larger degree in using smoke ? Tried this patch out to see if the AI somehow offered a wee bit more resistance and well.. I can't help but notice that smoke usage has dropped dramatically.

(in reply to RD Oddball)

Post #: 37