|
|
|
Notices |
Do you own this game? Write a review and let others know how you like it.
|
|
June 24th, 2005, 12:19 AM
|
|
Sergeant
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: MTY NL MX
Posts: 336
Thanks: 73
Thanked 14 Times in 10 Posts
|
|
was the new movement penalty really necessary?
It takes a chunk of traditional infantry effectiveness and lethality, depriving the game, in some extent, from a good source of nice looking assault variations
The above written is just my opinion
__________________
Oveja Negra
|
June 24th, 2005, 12:29 AM
|
|
Sergeant
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: MTY NL MX
Posts: 336
Thanks: 73
Thanked 14 Times in 10 Posts
|
|
Re: was the new movement penalty really necessary?
don't take me wrong, I love this game and it is everything I play, I'm just asking for the why of the new feature
__________________
Oveja Negra
|
June 24th, 2005, 01:38 AM
|
|
Captain
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 919
Thanks: 26
Thanked 27 Times in 21 Posts
|
|
Re: was the new movement penalty really necessary?
What do you mean exactly?
I played a game last night and everything moved as we might expect it to.
|
June 24th, 2005, 01:40 AM
|
Corporal
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 50
Thanks: 24
Thanked 9 Times in 6 Posts
|
|
Re: was the new movement penalty really necessary?
I though it was me. The penalty appears to be for loading/unloading and for firing in place(???). The original SP1 had this feature but I thought after much anguish it was decided to ditch it.
It does make one question the value of off-loading to prevent loss of entire squads when in defensive mode and a round gets the APC.
I know it doesn't matter but I don't care for it either. I would like to hear why it was re-introduced after so many versions.
carp
|
June 24th, 2005, 03:36 AM
|
|
Colonel
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,668
Thanks: 0
Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
|
|
Re: was the new movement penalty really necessary?
Hi,
This was introduced in order to help the game tactics when playing against a human opponent.
BTW, I hope the following will help you (quote from Don G.):
Rules:
- unloaded pax are already charged for unloading (transport movement value is added)
- changed to charge 1 point to pax if transport move is zero, i.e. min charge 1 MP to get out.
- Unloading vehicle is now charged 1/4 of its MP to unload (whatever the passengers were).
- loading:
counts number of men + load cost - so a 7 man 40mm AA gun with 7 crew costs 10 MP.
Passengers are charged 1/2 their MP on loading up.
---------
This GREATLY reduces the "Train" effect that has been a problem forever with SP. This makes trying to pass a unit forward on many transports a very long, involved. tedious process that really isn't worth the effort involved . It also means assaults with tanks and APC infantry mean the APC' cannot hang back then zoom forward and unload like they used to. You need to keep them with the tanks.
It's also a fair system in that it changes both transport and passenger for the time involved in loading and unloading and recognizes that it takes longer to load than unload.
|
June 24th, 2005, 03:38 AM
|
|
Major General
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 500km from Ulm
Posts: 2,279
Thanks: 9
Thanked 18 Times in 12 Posts
|
|
Re: was the new movement penalty really necessary?
Easy answer:
Without the added penalty, you could drive up your loaded APC to the MG nest, unload the engineers, blast the MG with flame/explosives/SMGs, reenter the APC and drive away..
Hardly realistic, and doesn't make much sense gameplay-wise, IMHO.
Now, you can't dismount under enemy (or friendly ) fire ... what was a big NO-NO when I was a Panzergrenadier anyway, as it inevitably leads to high casualties.
The APC has to retreat into cover. That has the added advantage that the enemy does not exactly now where you unload the inf, and what kind of inf it is.
__________________
As for AI the most effective work around to this problem so far is to simply use an American instead, they tend to put up a bit more of a fight than your average Artificial Idiot.
... James McGuigan on rec.games.computer.stars somewhen back in 1998 ...
|
June 24th, 2005, 05:37 AM
|
|
National Security Advisor
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dundee
Posts: 5,955
Thanks: 464
Thanked 1,896 Times in 1,234 Posts
|
|
Re: was the new movement penalty really necessary?
It goes some way towards reality in the relationship between time and space by stopping time travel (as well as some cheats).
Say a move is 1 minute (bit easier to calculate for)
Old system - infantry move full move to a transport, load for free at second 60 of the minute. Transport now sets off (at second 0, when the infantry would have been 100+ metres away and just stepping off!) and moves 100% of its move and drops infantry, for free at second 60. Infantry have now moved 120 seconds worth of movement in 60, and warped into a transport that was 100+ metres away and moving off at speed at second #1.
By charging both sides of the equation some points for the load and unload process, you balance time and space a little, probably as much as you can in a turn based game.
Cheers
Andy
|
June 24th, 2005, 03:01 PM
|
|
Second Lieutenant
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Budapest
Posts: 403
Thanks: 1
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
|
|
Re: was the new movement penalty really necessary?
This IS a _very_ good feature IMHO.
Artur.
__________________
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.", Sun Tzu
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
|
|