![]() |
Re: Improvement proposal I - OP fire draining
Man how good it is to read this http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif. I could not agree more http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif.
Thanks Thexder! Artur. PS: (It has been said before that jeeps do not drain Op fire but the cheap ACs and APCs do...) |
Re: Improvement proposal I - OP fire draining
That is because the game is set up to ignore unarmed unloaded soft vehicles except at ultra short distance, especially if the potential firer is currently undetected by the enemy. A few hexes further if he is known about.
Put an MG on the soft vehicle - it becomes an item of interest, ditto if loaded with passengers. That has been in the code for over a year(?) now, so the original trick you could play of "teasing out" opfire with cheap unarmed trucks and jeeps is less valid. The new more sophisticated opfire filter we are testing now looks promising, as does the more sophisticated AI target alocation in the normal AI phase, when it determines what target of those currently available to a unit is best to shoot at. Cheers Andy |
Re: Improvement proposal I - OP fire draining
Andy,
With all respect if you cannot add an interface for the players to decide I suggest not to change the OP fire mechanism. Simply I cannot see how one can define an algorithm valid for even most of the situations. There are cases when it is appropriate to fire even at an unarmed jeep, and sometimes it is appropriate to fire only at the heavies. It always depends on the situation that is why user interaction would be so important... Artur. |
Re: Improvement proposal I - OP fire draining
Artur, thanks for your kind words:)
But I wouldn't condemn the upgrades just yet even if they don't include interface for the players. I agree it's quite difficult to come up with an algoritm that applies to most cases but these guys seem to be pros and the fact that they're even considering this and trying new things sounds very promising to me. I've read these topics and found out that these guys are very quick to shoot down any proposed improvements that are either unrealistic or unmanagable within the context of the code. This time they're putting a lot of effort to an aspect of game that is one it's biggest weaknessess and hard to improve. At least I'm happy for their efforts and anxious to see the results. Let's keep our fingers crossed! And thank you Artur to for bringing this issue into discussion. Cheers, Jukka |
Re: Improvement proposal I - OP fire draining
Quote:
AGREED! |
Re: Improvement proposal I - OP fire draining
Quote:
Where did I say this? What is your point here? |
Re: Improvement proposal I - OP fire draining
Quote:
However, what if the iraqi crewman were all suicide bombers and had 100(+) Jeeps/Bmps all loaded with the equivalent of 1000lbs of TNT and rigged to explode on contact with our vehicles? Could have been a different outcome. |
Re: Improvement proposal I - OP fire draining
Quote:
|
Re: Improvement proposal I - OP fire draining
Quote:
you seem to be implying that op draing is ok because of radio net problems. It dosnt take a rocket scientist to look through the scope and see a jeep and and t72 and figure out which is more dangerous... I think you are on to something though which is that experience should equal smarter target aquistion I can see a green undertrained guy blowing his proverbial load at the first thing he sees but not someone fully trained and or having battle experience. |
Re: Improvement proposal I - OP fire draining
Maybe true realism is achieved only under real conditions..
Itīs a simulation, and could be considered as kind of combat chess, with added features, and a god-eye. But I agree with the op-fire draining in principle (and practise). |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:05 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.