Jump to content
Skybird03

Infantry Problems

Recommended Posts

Fiddled around with an old scenario of mine, where plenty of infantry shows up.

Is it just me or have they become incredibly tame? I remember that they do no longer fire rifles at tanks, okay, but I played five hours and they did not fire a single ATM, although they had quite some of these. I even could drive a single tank into a crowd of infantry, and not needing to gfear somebody shooting a Panzerfaust into my back.

I also noticed that collision detection (trees and buildings) also seem to have detoriated, making teammates eventually wondering off into the woods further than ever before when they are supposed to stay in column.

Tank MG gunners I noticed to shoot often too short when aiming at infantry, although I did not use an adjusted map theme (no adjustement to the bumpiness, the infantry laid flat on the ground, almost unhidden).

I also get occasional screen stutters (or very low screen frames) now, rarely, but it happens. That is a first over here. windows XPO, the same computer P-4 3 GHz that i used since three years and SBP was released. Just the graphics board improved three times (nVidia 7950GT, 512 MB), and RAM doubled to now 2 GHz.

I see that units seem to avoid more often getting stuck in rivers. However, waterholes in the ground still remain completely undetected. In one of my first attempts with the new version, using one of the old default scenarios, I saw nine tanks in three runs getting stuck in small water obstacles of approx. 2x2 or 3x3 meters.

I do not want to nag, but ignoring the new vehicles and new stuff, but considering also the other bugs that have been mentioned in the past weeks, and focussing only on the finetuning and patching, I must say this is the least convincing patch of all the patches there have been, at least imo. I really hope for the summer patch to this upgrade, there is quite some work to be done, it seems to me. Better take one month more, if needed. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was it one of the Leo2A4-Platoon-Missions?

I had some strange encounters with infantry there...no ATMs suddenly....but my Gunner had big troubles finding the infantry...

Seems like they are now better camouflaged now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not about the documented feature of infantry sinking deeper into the ground if the bumpiness of terrain is increased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also get occasional screen stutters (or very low screen frames) now, rarely, but it happens. That is a first over here. windows XPO, the same computer P-4 3 GHz that i used since three years and SBP was released. Just the graphics board improved three times (nVidia 7950GT, 512 MB), and RAM doubled to now 2 GHz.

;)

I have noticed the same. I don't think this has to do with graphics driver or Gpu performance, even if Nvidia drivers have some problems. It was suggested in another thread that it was the AAR being written to Hdd. In that case it's essentially Hdd lag... I haven't had this before either, with the same computer setup. Is there any way to get rid of it or improve on this on the users end? Has the way how AAR is recorded changed? Is there more data getting stored now? Not a big problem, but happens with some irritating regularity through out missions...

Cheers porphy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By default, I think only one in three dismount squads has any rpg type weapons.

It is easy to add more in the scenario editor though. If you aren't seeing RPG shots, then I really don't know what to say - my experience in 2.460 and later is that infantry are very dangerous now. In 'Blind Elephants' with an updated theme, I rarely get through unscathed, even when actively suppressing the bad guys and knowing when and where they will hit me from. (Ok I could fire HEAT and make it really easy, but I'm trying to do it with just Cannister, Coax and HMG)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I came in here to read about infantry but instead see a long rant of various issues. ;) Kidding, but seriously though, you should put stuff in the Support forum if you suspect there are bugs there.

In regards to the infantry, nothing has changed in regards to something making them "tame". You should check your scenario, only the 1st squad in a platoon has an RPG (this has always been this way), so maybe your memory might be failing you here. Just give every squad an RPG with maximum ammo count and you will be in RPG hell.

AFAIK, the infantry still fire their rifle and everything else at tanks (unfortunately).

Water avoidance issue: it has always been like this. An improvement was made, but we can't really expect perfection here either. One problem with small water obstacles (or a water obstacle in general) is that if it has a steep side then the vehicle will slide in before it gets to a point where it can see the water obstacle. The only thing you can do to avoid this (currently) is be more mindful of your unit routing.

Collision detection with trees and buildings have actually improved over the past, but there are still (and always have been) the nagging issue of the AI's bypass routine. Basically, it encounters an obstruction, then does a series of random backing up to turn, then pull forward and turn, until it clears the obstruction. If you have a case where the AI is wandering off to run into a tree then by all means, post a test scenario in the support forum that shows this.

Tank MG gunners: I haven't heard anything about this nor seen it. Very interesting. Again, try to reproduce it in a test scenario and submit it to the support forum.

I do not want to nag, but ignoring the new vehicles and new stuff, but considering also the other bugs that have been mentioned in the past weeks, and focussing only on the finetuning and patching, I must say this is the least convincing patch of all the patches there have been, at least imo. I really hope for the summer patch to this upgrade, there is quite some work to be done, it seems to me. Better take one month more, if needed. :wink:

Well, I am not quite sure how to respond to this. Sure, you are entitled to your opinion, but if this is the least convincing update for you then, well, I don't know what to say. All I can (or should) say is: everyone has their own personal issue and crusade on what they want to see "fixed", "changed", "addressed", added or improved -- but we are looking at major functionality and gameplay issues. If you can provide some test scenarios demonstrating the issues you describe, then it will certainly be looked into.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tank MG gunners I noticed to shoot often too short when aiming at infantry, although I did not use an adjusted map theme (no adjustement to the bumpiness, the infantry laid flat on the ground, almost unhidden).

I experience this somewhat. They fire short for a few bursts, then for me they fire a bit long... And after a "few" bursts they hit the target. But never that they just keep shooting short. I hit the infantry much better than the AI, but my gunner hits the infantry eventually while they are prone. If they stand up they are dropped in seconds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing to keep in mind for screen stuttering is that if a scenario occurs in the morning or evening where the lighting is changing frequently, then you will indeed see an occasional stutter as the scene is redrawn to adjust for the change in lighting. As the light level stabilizes (when it is bright or when it is completely dark) then the periodic stutter after a major shift in light level will go away.

I am not saying that this is the cause of the stuttering that you describe, but it is good to know. In the future this will probably become more efficient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By default, I think only one in three dismount squads has any rpg type weapons.

It is easy to add more in the scenario editor though. If you aren't seeing RPG shots, then I really don't know what to say - my experience in 2.460 and later is that infantry are very dangerous now. )

It is a mission I put togteher in summer 2007. Back then I randomised many infantry squads, and each of them edited manually, to make sure they have RPg style weapons, each of them. I then edited them again to make sure they only had old, less effective ATMs, since the mission proved to play extremely dangerously and lethal. Now I boosted their ATMs again - only to see them not using them. The mission design is screwed now, a pure shouting gallery for me using the MG. Not important anyhow, I just want to say I did not use the standard squads you get when iserting infantry. There are plenty of ATMs - at least on paper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm regularly getting shot up by infantry, so you will have to get more specific...

The pauses could also be caused by the AAR being written to disk, as someone mentioned. It would be interesting to know the interval between the pauses.

What maps are you seeing the tiny "holes" in? I might be able to fix those. For the most part, those are not water - they are voids in map data. Units cannot "see" slopes, and they won't get close enough to center of the void until its too late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is a mission I put togteher in summer 2007. Back then I randomised many infantry squads, and each of them edited manually, to make sure they have RPg style weapons, each of them. I then edited them again to make sure they only had old, less effective ATMs, since the mission proved to play extremely dangerously and lethal. Now I boosted their ATMs again - only to see them not using them. The mission design is screwed now, a pure shouting gallery for me using the MG. Not important anyhow, I just want to say I did not use the standard squads you get when iserting infantry. There are plenty of ATMs - at least on paper.

Are any of the infantry located in buildings? Why don't you try posting the scenario here for one thing???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to the infantry, nothing has changed in regards to something making them "tame". You should check your scenario, only the 1st squad in a platoon has an RPG (this has always been this way), so maybe your memory might be failing you here. Just give every squad an RPG with maximum ammo count and you will be in RPG hell.

As I told Lieste, I did.

AFAIK, the infantry still fire their rifle and everything else at tanks (unfortunately).

No, they do not. Not in any mission I play, also not in the default ones. I checked with both difficulty setting. Eventually you get an occasional burst from heavy MGs - but not before at least half an eon of time has passed. Not shooting a rifle at a tank even makes sense. bigger callibre is something different

Water avoidance issue: it has always been like this. An improvement was made, but we can't really expect perfection here either. One problem with small water obstacles (or a water obstacle in general) is that if it has a steep side then the vehicle will slide in before it gets to a point where it can see the water obstacle. The only thing you can do to avoid this (currently) is be more mindful of your unit routing.

Yes, it has been like this always. I always was very friendly towards SBP, but this single one thing i always considered to be a maximum callibre major bug. It killed too many missions for me, and caused me too much frustration as if I would label it different than a major bug on parade.

Collision detection with trees and buildings have actually improved over the past, but there are still (and always have been) the nagging issue of the AI's bypass routine. Basically, it encounters an obstruction, then does a series of random backing up to turn, then pull forward and turn, until it clears the obstruction. If you have a case where the AI is wandering off to run into a tree then by all means, post a test scenario in the support forum that shows this.

Sorry, but it happens eventually in practically all scenarios i play. In summer 2007, SBP was at a version where I posted about this, too. I had done a small demonstration scenario, where two friendly tank columns meet head on on a small road through a forest, with a bit of swampy ground around. they used to pass each other, without zigzagging. A patch that came changed that, "improving" collision detection. the tanks now zigzagged around each other. and another patch later I remember that they started to evade to the side away from the road, to the right side that is. Problem was that they did not recognise the way back and the trees made them evading away from the road more and more.

This behavior I see VERY OFTEN. Originally, in the very early versions of SBP, I did not see it, at least not as often. I do not wish to start a fight here, or voice frustration, or rant, but I must object eSim's claims that collision detection and column formation has improved, as was stated with earlier patches, too. In my perception, this special thing constantly, slowly detoriated with each patch. I now must micromanage a unit MORE than before, not less, regarding this issue.

there are some building types, that have kind of balconies on second and higher floors, making the building seem to hang over the street, although the front of it nevertheless does not block the street. they often appear in ME-type terrain sets. these, but also some others, cause constant troubles for a tank column passing on the street - it zigzags to the other side. When there are buildings, there are potential problems, because it slows down the column that now at very slow speeds zig zags its way along that road.

I must say that currently, together with the infantry-problems in buildings, I consider urban scenarios completely unplayable. I stay with scenarios in wide open terrain, and for the time being I avoid infantry-stuff. If it stays that way I will seriously consider to skip both the Beta and 2.460, and return to an previous version, and stay with that forever. What I see working unreliable now, worked better back then.

Tank MG gunners: I haven't heard anything about this nor seen it. Very interesting. Again, try to reproduce it in a test scenario and submit it to the support forum.

Set up a tank platoon versus infantry on a map. that's all, essentially that is what I did. Infantry in the woods, if it is a modified terrain theme, eventually will sink into the ground, so that the gunner aiming deep (when the body'S centre is hidden in the ground) can be explained that way. However, it also happens now with infantry sitting still on a terrain type where it is not covered. There is no need to create scenarios. when I go to gunner's seat, the first thing I do automatically is to raise the reticle a bit, and then the bullets hit, often even if I do not lase myself, but use the gunner's range. Reminds a little bit of the bug after the release of the original SBP in Spring 2006 - there was the problem that gunners in principle shot too short, and aimed too low. It got quickly hotfixed, if you remember. Today, only infantry is affected over here, not always, but often. Shooting at vehicles works well.

Well, I am not quite sure how to respond to this. Sure, you are entitled to your opinion, but if this is the least convincing update for you then, well, I don't know what to say. All I can (or should) say is: everyone has their own personal issue and crusade on what they want to see "fixed", "changed", "addressed", added or improved -- but we are looking at major functionality and gameplay issues. If you can provide some test scenarios demonstrating the issues you describe, then it will certainly be looked into.

Do not take it personally. I have always been a very loyal defender of SBP, and really did my share in other forums to "promote" it. My review of it probably was the most enthusiastic and friendly that was written by anyone and published at any site. And by all modesty, I know that I created you several dozen customers, over at subsim.com/tanksim.com. In the first 6 months, I got incredibly much feedback via email and pmail. In this 2.460 package, I do not rate the new vehicles, to be honest, I still have not even looked into them. There already are so many good vehicles, that new vehicles for me personally is a bonus, but no "must" by any means.

The other two aspects of 2.460, are upgrading and/or changing some functions, and patching some old bugs. Some of these changes obviously went wrong, and some of these bugs even already have been confirmed by your team.

Note that I asked questions, and neutrally report what I happen to see in several missions here, on the same computer that ran all SBP versions so far, I have not had any major hardware upgrade except of more memory, and graphics boards (always have been nVidia, from FX5950 over FX 7800GS to now FS7950). I did not complain and called names, I did not accuse your team, and did not demand "quick patches and customer service". I did not even claim to have found "bugs", for I am not completely sure. I also asked some questions some days ago, if you remember, and did not talk of bugs. and the things indeed showed up to find explanations that I did not know. no bugs.

But here, it is different. you indicate that you never have seen these things, and think they only show up in any special scenarios of mine. But the point is - over here, it does not take any special scenario. The things I described are the rule here, independant from the scenario. Again, it does not need any special scenario.

That's why I have a very hard time to understand why you indicate you never see them.

Again, Volcano, this is no frustrating lonely guy just venting. I am not frustrated, I am more surprised, because 2.460's patching to me leaves a lot of questions unanswered, and opens some new questions. I hope for improvements and fixes to some old things, the waterhole-thing for example. I question the wisdom to turn the IEDs into nuclear warheads. and I ask questions about issues with infantry and ATMs, tree avoidance, column formation and building collision detection - because these things worked better with earlier versions. Your statement that these things you consider to be actually improved, I receive with surprise, and disbelief. They have changed, yes. But I question that they have changed for the better.

Personally, I was happy with SBP pretty much when it came out. I am no collector, I do not need a hundred different tanks, I do not wait for a playable T-72. Not that I am unthankful for the Spanish vehicles, but it'S not that I waited for any new vehicles at all. but what I have a problem with is when I see functions that worked reasonably well before, work not only different anymore, but work less good. Then I ask: is it me, or is it a bug indeed.That'S what I just did some days ago, and now again. You claim to not even know what I talk about, and never having seen it, while I see it very often, and not just in special scenaios, but in default scenarios. Now I am left with a problem. Because I will not see something fixed, if the existence of a problem itself is put into question. And sending you any scenario file for testing that you already have yourself, since it is a general or default scenario, does not make sense. See my problem?

Thus, if it stays that way, I will indeed consider to give up the future upgrading travel, and stay with the last version before the Beta, or the Beta.

I am not in a huff. I just want to know where I stand regarding SBP, and what to expect any further - and what not. After three years of most intense playing, the price has payed off many times already. ;) So even if my SBP journey would end here while most of you others move on with future versions, I would have no hard feelings. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm regularly getting shot up by infantry, so you will have to get more specific...

The pauses could also be caused by the AAR being written to disk, as someone mentioned. It would be interesting to know the interval between the pauses.

What maps are you seeing the tiny "holes" in? I might be able to fix those. For the most part, those are not water - they are voids in map data. Units cannot "see" slopes, and they won't get close enough to center of the void until its too late.

For example "Platoon Reconnaissance", the three of four little "ponds" south-east of the objective, south of the central hill. But prqactically every map with "features" like these. I have nicknamed them "Chinese waterpond torture".

wasn't it explained long ago, if I remember correctly: the slopes being too steep and too narrow to each other, virtually so that the vehicle's frame gets trapped and front and back, with the tracks/wheels having lost ground. different to steep riversloaps, where oyu could get out if reacting in time by moving in reverse (just that the AI does not go into reverse at steep riverbanks :) )

that was a lot of writing for one day. Be back tomorrow, eventually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, they do not. Not in any mission I play, also not in the default ones. I checked with both difficulty settings in the options. Eventually you get an occasional burst from one heavy MG - but not before at least half an eon of time has passed.

In that case, great. We have been trying to get this fixed for quite some time now -- infantry firing on tanks with small arms. I see no problem here then from what you describe, but then again I can't be completely sure of what you are describing here either. :frown:

Yes, it has been like this always. I always was very friendly towards SBP, but this single one thing i always considered to be a maximum callibre major bug. It killed too many missions for me, and caused me too much frustration as if I would label it different than a major bug on parade.

Again, post the scenario. I have no idea what you are seeing here. I asked you if the infantry are located in buildings, in which case there is (see the other posts in the support forum) a bug reported and now fixed on infantry not firing while in buildings. Actually they are firing in the building but a collision detection issue was keeping the rounds from coming out.

there are some building types, that have kind of balconies on second and hgiher floors, making the buoil,ding seem to hang over the street, altho9ugh the front of it nevertheless does not block the street. they often appear in ME-type terrain sets. these, but also some others, cause constant troubles for a tank column passiong on the street - it zigzags to the other side. When there is a building, then there is a problem, becasue it slows down the column that now at very slow speeds zig zags its way along that road.

Known, and reported. As has been said before in the past versions, the collision box on this building is simply a box that covers the furthest extent of the building. This building is so small, I don't see how it can be causing such a huge problem. Perhaps we should remove that building altogether.

I must say that currently, together with the infantry-problems in buildings, I consider urban scenarios compeletly unplayable.

Ok! So your infantry in your scenario are in buildings? Now we are getting somewhere. Since you won't post the scenario, then we have to to guess here. If this is the case, then this explains why the infantry are seemingly not firing anything, but again we have to guess without seeing your scenario.

Do not take it personally.

Well, I don't think anyone is taking it personally, we are just trying to get to the bottom of what you are saying. Honestly it looks more like a rant than a directed complaint about a bug. This is what I am trying to get past so that we can evaluate and fix any problems. You have to understand, if we are to look into "issues" then we have to know as much as possible about it. Again, the best way to do this is with a simple test scenario. Otherwise quite a bit of confusing detective work is necissary. But in the time it took to type all of this, you could have posted your infantry scenario that you are talking about. ;)

The other two aspects of 2.460, are upgrading and or changing some functions, and patching some old bugs. Some of these changes obviously went wrong, and some of these bugs even already have been confirmed by your team.

Well, to be clear, as of 1 MAR there are four known bugs new to 2.460 which are being addressed:

-Infantry won't fire from buildings -- ATGMs, RPGs, small arms (which is a collision detection problem)

-TOW missile launcher will not reload properlly unless on level ground

-FISTV sight will not raise unless on level ground

-PPT ammo on CV9035 and Slsgr 95 ammo are not functioning properly

All of these have been addressed and are currently being tested for a future patch. If there is some other bug that is new to the sim then, well, naturally I have to be inquisative to find out if it is a bug and find out everything about it. I can understand someone not being happy with the addition of four new bugs. But I guess it depends on how you view it -- you can view it that you paid for these four bugs and nothing new that you wanted which is of course extreme pessimism, or you can view it that you got a lot of extra content which came with four new bugs. Either way, those bugs will be addressed soon enough, it is not as if we are saying "just deal with it". ;)

But here, it is different. you indicate that you never have seen these things, and think they only show up in any special scenarios of mine. But the point is - over here, it does not take any special scenario. The things I described are the rule here, independant from the scenario. Again, it does not need any special scenario.

Ok, let me try to explain this again a little clearer. If you would be so kind as to attach a test scenario here, then we can 100% without a doubt use the same scenario you are using to see the "bugs" that you are seeing. This allows us to easily pinpoint the issue and address the problem (the scenario is actually used for debugging purposes). Without a test scenario then it is concievable that the same behavior is never noticed. I am in no way accusing you of making "special" scenarios where only you can see these bugs and I can't really understand what you mean by that to be honest.

Anyway, maybe I am not the best person to be answering your questions here nor am I the best person to justify the purchase of the upgrade. The latter is only something you can decide amongst yourself. If you feel that you got cheated and prefered the old version then of course you have the right to decide that you will never purchase another update. I just don't understand what kind of response you expect to get here. I am trying to get to the bottom of the issue and get things fixed, but you seem to think I have another agenda.

I will let other, more qualified, people continue this discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't fix this map because its so old, but I did route a platoon of tanks back and forth over these ponds in line formation several times. They correctly routed around the holes.

Which reinforces my point. You have to be specific. Post specific scenarios with routes in there so we can see the problem within a few minutes. Otherwise we will just waste time going in circles.

For example "Platoon Reconnaissance", the three of four little "ponds" south-east of the objective, south of the central hill. But prqactically every map with "features" like these. I have nicknamed them "Chinese waterpond torture".

wasn't it explained long ago, if I remember correctly: the slopes being too steep and too narrow to each other, virtually so that the vehicle's frame gets trapped and front and back, with the tracks/wheels having lost ground. different to steep riversloaps, where oyu could get out if reacting in time by moving in reverse (just that the AI does not go into reverse at steep riverbanks :) )

that was a lot of writing for one day. Be back tomorrow, eventually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T72, engaged and destroyed by AI infantry from BTR80 company.

All dead in the time it took to return fire on three vehicles.

SS_01_05_07.jpg.87016adea9efd857dd8fbcf7

SS_01_05_07.jpg.87016adea9efd857dd8fbcf7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't fix this map because its so old, but I did route a platoon of tanks back and forth over these ponds in line formation several times. They correctly routed around the holes.

Which reinforces my point. You have to be specific. Post specific scenarios with routes in there so we can see the problem within a few minutes. Otherwise we will just waste time going in circles.

example: run the scenario "Platoon Reconnaissance" (or ANY other where such ponds exist).

Three tanks in wedge formation, centre tank leading through the middle of the pond-area. If you choose your path that way that your wingmen's path leads into the ponds, they do not avoid it. If they do avoid them on your side, then we talk about two totally different games, obviously. they of course also do not avolid them,(which is more critical) when in reverse.

Mis-works that way both with the default scenario, and the edit I did (does not change anything but uses triggers to let player chose the type of tanks he plays with).

Mensch, ich bin doch nicht blöd. When I see a tank running into a pond, then I see a tank running into a pond. Basta. Use the default scenario- IT WORKS. That is the scenario that comes on the disc 2.460. Use any other where there are ponds. You want my scenario? I'll send you a Rapidshare link in a minute, both the default and the edited scenario. Give me one minute.

Volcano,

I emailed a Rapidshare-link via your profile's email with that mission draft of mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mensch, ich bin doch nicht blöd. When I see a tank running into a pond, then I see a tank running into a pond. Basta. Use the default scenario- IT WORKS. That is the scenario that comes on the disc 2.460. Use any other where there are ponds. You want my scenario? I'll send you a Rapidshare link in a minute, both the default and the edited scenario. Give me one minute.

No one is calling you dumb. Seriously, step back and take a deep breath... everything will be ok.

Ok, thanks for sending the scenario to me, but I have yet to see an email. Can you PM me the link to it? Or better yet, this is very easy, just zip it and attach it to a post here in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wedge formation doesnt make a difference. The platoon routes around the pond every time. They even miss it in reverse, which surprises me.

Once again - please edit the scenario with some routes that can make this happen. Zip the sce up and attach it to the thread.

If they are failling in, theres obviously more variables to this than what I am looking it. What orders are they on? What speed? Are they engaging? Are you using time compression?

I'm sure its possible to send tanks into water, and it still happens. But until there is a scenario that exposes the problem in a reproducable fashion, its tough to fix.

example: run the scenario "Platoon Reconnaissance" (or ANY other where such ponds exist).

Three tanks in wedge formation, centre tank leading through the middle of the pond-area. If you choose your path that way that your wingmen's path leads into the ponds, they do not avoid it. If they do avoid them on your side, then we talk about two totally different games, obviously. they of course also do not avolid them,(which is more critical) when in reverse.

Mis-works that way both with the default scenario, and the edit I did (does not change anything but uses triggers to let player chose the type of tanks he plays with).

Mensch, ich bin doch nicht blöd. When I see a tank running into a pond, then I see a tank running into a pond. Basta. Use the default scenario- IT WORKS. That is the scenario that comes on the disc 2.460. Use any other where there are ponds. You want my scenario? I'll send you a Rapidshare link in a minute, both the default and the edited scenario. Give me one minute.

Volcano,

I emailed a Rapidshare-link via your profile's email with that mission draft of mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, let me try to explain this again a little clearer. If you would be so kind as to attach a test scenario here, then we can 100% without a doubt use the same scenario you are using to see the "bugs" that you are seeing. This allows us to easily pinpoint the issue and address the problem (the scenario is actually used for debugging purposes). Without a test scenario then it is concievable that the same behavior is never noticed. I am in no way accusing you of making "special" scenarios where only you can see these bugs and I can't really understand what you mean by that to be honest.

I mean - and said that - that the infantry being "tame" and being extremely hesitent to shoot ATMs at tanks I do see not only in my own edited scenarios, BUT IN THE DEFAULT SCENARIOS AS WELL THAT CAME WITH THE DISC 2.460, and the original disc as well (so far I have played around only with the old scenarios). Assuming that you use the same version that you sold to us customers, you already have all those default scenarios. And I just repeatedly said that the "issues" I described I see happening in default scenarios as well, not just in my own edited maps.

Don't know how to make that any clearer. Anyhow, I sent you a link with that own-edited mission of mine. But you could use just any other. That's how it is over here. The behavior I described is indepedent from map or mission.

Anyway, maybe I am not the best person to be answering your questions here nor am I the best person to justify the purchase of the upgrade. The latter is only something you can decide amongst yourself. If you feel that you got cheated and prefered the old version then of course you have the right to decide that you will never purchase another update.

Thank you. :mad: That kind of twists is exactly what I do not need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange, I sent two emails from your profile links, to Sean, and Volcano. Two different files.

Let'S see if this attachment works. 1.5 MB.

Edit. No. Where is it? This is new matter for me.

Edit. maybe now?

[deleted by Sky]

Ah! Thats was Suzon-2 for Volcano.

This is my edit of LesTriades's Platoon Recon

[deleted by Sky]

It only adds triggers for different tank selection, that is the only difference to the default.

Edited by Skybird03

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hit the "quick reply" icon at the bottom right side of the post you want to reply to. Hit go advanced at the bottom. Under additional options, there's a button - Manage Attachments. Hit that and then follow the directions to attach your zip or rar file containing the scenario. Then submit the reply like normal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Found it already. Needed to experiment a bit. Thanks. Links above.

0320 hours over here. Lights off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I intended to steer clear of this thread simply because I thought you were misunderstanding my intentions. I didn't mean anything bad by this, I just thought it was hindering the discussion -- but perhaps I can help after all.

Thanks for the scenario attachment. Now we are getting somewhere.

In regards to your "tame" infantry. Here is an idea: since Red has US equipment, try using something other than the M72 and M72A2 LAW rocket as the RPG. I am not sure what you expect the infantry to do with that against Strv 122s and CV90/40-Cs. Why not give them all M136 AT-4s and see what happens? It is easy to select one and then check the box "use these ammo types". Save it as an alternate version and see if they are better.

Also, you need to consider adjusting your theme. I am getting 65kph cross country speeds in vehicles, so it is very easy to drive at insanely high speeds up to the infantry before they can actually fire their RPGs. Once you get inside their minimum safe range then they are useless.

Consider adding some bumpiness to your woods. Currently I see that there is no bumpiness, so the infantry do not sink into the ground in the woods -- they are just sitting ducks. Also consider adding bumpiness to the open ground too so that infantry can sink in there as well for cover. Actually, try replacing your theme with "Realism woodland (summer)" or something like that, if nothing else but than to get an idea of what to set the sliders to. Save it as an alternate version of the scenario and run it to see how infantry can become deadlier.

---------------------

If you make these changes, then I am sure you will have infantry hell to deal with. It is not unnatural to have to rebalance a scenario to a new version either. With a few quick changes the infantry can be deadlier than they ever where before.

As it looks right now though, you have no protection given to the infantry in the form of bumpiness on the theme, the theme is set at such a high mobility that infantry can be driven over at 65 kph cross country, the infantry have the worst RPGs in the sim, and they are opposing some of the best protected vehicles in the sim (Strv 122 and CV90/40-C).

That said, there may be an old bug with the M72 and/or M72A3 RPG. I am trying to determine that now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...