Page 2 of 2
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 12:16 pm
I agree with letting the AI handle the squads, that's the joy, not microing everything. Though I would like the AI to be a little smarter in respects as to when to open fire. I would also like more feedback as to why someone isn't following my orders, or why they're doing whatever it is they're doing. We've got a good start on that, but it could be improved.
I'd also like the AI to be a little smarter in its deployment. If I put a line by a hill edge, I don't want them at the back of the ledge where they can't see over the edge and thus do nothing, I want them at the edge where they have a LOF down the hill! Likewise, I don't want guys who in the woods with no LOF in the direction the arrow is facing (though this isn't so bad as men tend to adjust themselves to get LOF).
The arrow is a mysterious entity sometimes though, especially when trying to fine tune your building deployment
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 1:40 am
Quitch wrote:I'd also like the AI to be a little smarter in its deployment. If I put a line by a hill edge, I don't want them at the back of the ledge where they can't see over the edge and thus do nothing, I want them at the edge where they have a LOF down the hill! Likewise, I don't want guys who in the woods with no LOF in the direction the arrow is facing (though this isn't so bad as men tend to adjust themselves to get LOF).
That's easy for you to say mate. You're perched on your nice, safe hill a tactical bound to the rear giving orders. They're up the sharp end trying to put some blessed earth between their bodies and enemy bullets!
Don't get me wrong. I'm not going to spring to the defence of everything that Firefight does. For some reason, however, I simply don't have a problem with a lot of the stuff you mention. In fact, many of the points you raise are precisely why I like Firefight so much.
Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 10:14 am
Yes, and if it's not safe they retreat, but until then they go where the Commander orders them to go. If I'm wrong, people die, but I'm not getting to find out. Getting a decent LOS from a hill is nigh on impossible, and being selective so that people have an LOS in one direction while being protected from another is even harder!
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 4:39 am
Quitch wrote:Maybe not that, but orders like "Wait till point blank" or "Wait for rear armour" would be brilliant for bazooka teams and other specialist units, or units who you want to ambush other units.
I like the idea and maybe add some options for things like to not get pinned down by fire while attacking/defending
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:35 pm
Big Red One wrote:I like the idea and maybe add some options for things like to not get pinned down by fire while attacking/defending
You need to explain this one a bit more. Pinning the enemy down is a major part of the game.
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:55 am
like a banzai charge type thing?
i still think a strict no firing order should be there. MGs are just getting blown to bits before the enemy is far enough forward to get enfilading fire, its a bit rubbish
Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:47 pm
I know this topic is a bit old but it is the perfect one to reply to with what I have to say.
I think there should be a hold fire command. True this isn't a micromanagement game, however a hold fire command is in no way micromanagement. You are just telling your troops to not let loose. That is part of smart planning in battle. You hold your fire, let the enemy first walk into your trap, then spring it. Eagerly shooting at the first enemy that appears is asking to get yourself killed (not to mention court martialed if your commander has been telling you to cease any fire). In fact as it is it is more micromanagement. In order to hold your trap up so the enemy can walk into the killing field you have to cycle through your squads over and over giving the cease fire command very quickly. By doing a general hold fire command you are actually removing that micromanagement that you don't want and replacing it with a viable alternative that allows players to set up traps and preparations beyond "ok you go there and you go there, and start firing" and hoping that you drive the enemy off before they punch through your lines. I also think the computer should do this, holding their fire would add some difficulty to the game. Which is more realistic after all. An enemy who walks towards your position then sits down and starts firing at you giving away his position... or an enemy that holds his fire and attempts to come at you from an unexpected direction. It would add a new level of tactics to the game as well as some more realism.
Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 2:18 am
Nomadic wrote:I know this topic is a bit old but it is the perfect one to reply to with what I have to say.
I think there should be a hold fire command. etc . . . .
I agree. There is also the problem that troops fire madly all over the map, and get away with it, because there are no "friendly fire" casualties.
Your own artillery causes casualties to your own troops, nothing else does so far as I can see.
Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 10:44 am
JeanBoule wrote:Your own artillery causes casualties to your own troops, nothing else does so far as I can see.
I think that tank main armament and anti-tank gun fire also cause friendly casualties if misdirected.
Although I tend to argue against most changes to Firefight, a unit "hold fire" toggle is something I would like to see.
For HMGs on defence, I work around it by deploying them behind something and moving them forward into line-of-sight once the enemy attack has started to develop.
When attacking, I sometimes get my mortars to move aimlessly backwards and forwards to stop them from expending their ammo on early targets.
It's all a bit amateurish, though. A hold fire toggle would achieve the same thing far more sensibly.
Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 11:51 pm
I think indeed that firefight shouldn't be changed much. It is a command level operation, not micromanagement. But in that vein of thinking a hold fire command is a command level order. To make it realistic perhaps you could set up how long a person could hold fire based on morale levels. Hardened and well trained troops would hold longer then greener ones. So if you had veterans on the front your hold fire command would be obeyed longer then if they were fresh out of boot camp.
Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 12:32 am
I think that's way too complicated, mate. For Firefight purposes, a simple Weapons Free/Hold Fire switch is all that is required, fully controllable by the player.
I have no trouble imagining my Firefight company commander telling his platoon and section commanders "Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes" or something similarly dramatic.
You are right to suggest that some troops may obey this sort of order better than others. A real-life company commander may want X section to hold fire until the enemy reaches the line of the road (or whatever) and some of the guys in the section may get a bit twitchy and open up early. The small amount of additional realism simulating this would add to the game, however, is IMO not worth the effort it would take to code it.
Some sort of switch is needed because, at the moment, units open fire far too early in a most unlikely manner. A simple On/Off toggle would stop this. As you point out, it would actually go a bit far the other way (too much player control) but the result would be more reasonable than the current situation and I'd be happy with that.
YMMV, of course.
Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 2:57 pm
literally 2 or 3 toggle boxes at the side of the screen
if you get what i mean? and there being a simple unit based override for proximity of enemy and in the case of FGs, likelyhood of hit
Mercedes-Benz M119 engine history
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 6:52 pm
Agreed.I think thats exactly wat te game needs,Andy