Up to beta version 3.99m now!

Quitch · Post by **Quitch** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 5:17 pm

But if Very Hard is the hardest it gets, then it needs to challenge the very best. If there are people out there who can win Very Hard defences, then it's not too hard, you're just playing at the wrong level.

I don't see what the problem is in that case. Question is, are people winning Very Hard defences?

Please feed back to your publisher that Hard on most games is a joke, and I want to see harder difficulty on games in the future.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 6:31 pm

Not logged in, but I went back to play a random game on very hard to see if I understood what you're saying. It seems to me that once you engage the enemy on the harder levels there is very liitle you can do by way of maneouvring your troops as they come under so much fire that they are pinned down and clinging on for dear life. So it's about positioning before the battle, not movement, counter-attack or outflanking during the battle on defence and on the harder modes as you just don't have the reserves to be able to do this.

I had four units with panzerfausts and two AT guns. My far right unit was wiped out within 2 minutes. My centre unit took out one Sherman with a Panzerfaust before another Sherman took out both my AT and rolled over my centre unit. My other centre had 50% casualties from shelling and my left unit couldn't move to the centre as it was pinned down. The CPU took its own tank out in a artillery barrage so basically I sat there with everyone pinned down and not moving. 21 minutes into the game they wiped me out and took the objective without me having been able to move a single unit.

So, accepting that there is little or no possibility of moving troops tactically in these scenarios, how does beating the very hard level make you "the best"? It's about positioning before the battle, and considering how you have no way of knowing where in the large area you have to defend to meet tanks, infantry and whatever else, isn't it down, in some part at least, to a lot of luck that you manage to position your men exactly where they are needed to negate the threat?

I accept that if you think hard levels are too easy you've probably spent a lot of time playing video games, but the most successful games, commercially, are ones with the broadest appeal and being too easy or too difficult never makes appeal particularly broad.

I worked at a publisher in the past - so I'm afraid I won't be able to feed back your comments.

Quitch · Post by **Quitch** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 10:57 pm

They also have good marketing and a major publisher

Andy Brown · Post by **Andy Brown** » Sat Nov 19, 2005 8:43 pm

For some people, it's good that there's a level where a game is unbeatable. Others are unhappy with a level that they can't beat. Horses for courses.

I'm in the former category. Because there's a challenge, I'll always keep trying to crack it. For me, there's no shame in failing at the hardest level. It's doing exactly what a "hardest level" should do.

I understand some people may find an unbeatable level frustrating. There's a nice sense of closure in beating the best a game can throw at you. I guess Firefight isn't one of those games and I'm happy with that.

I apologise for the flippancy of my previous post but it all seems too obvious to me. If you must play to win, select a difficulty setting where you can!

Andy Brown

Andy Brown · Post by **Andy Brown** » Sat Nov 19, 2005 8:57 pm

Anonymous wrote:So, accepting that there is little or no possibility of moving troops tactically in these scenarios, how does beating the very hard level make you "the best"? It's about positioning before the battle, and considering how you have no way of knowing where in the large area you have to defend to meet tanks, infantry and whatever else, isn't it down, in some part at least, to a lot of luck that you manage to position your men exactly where they are needed to negate the threat?

There are a few things you can (try to) do to improve your chances.

Firstly, there is only one objective. That is where the enemy is going. Defending close in to the objective means your troops will be where the enemy definitely has to go and maximises the mutual support units can give each other.

Second, one or two sacrificial recce units deployed forward can give you a bit of intelligence on which to redeploy any reserves and might even break up the enemy advance a bit.

Thirdly, keep the line/semi-circle/whatever-your-defensive-layout-looks-like as "smooth" as possible with each unit closely supported by its neighbours. A squad deployed even one field in advance of the main position will be found by the enemy and destroyed in detail. No squad in any game or in real life can withstand the concentrated fire of three or four enemy squads with similar weapons, training and morale. The idea is not to let this happen (much easier said than done at the "very hard" level

).

Andy Brown

Andy · Post by **Andy** » Sat Nov 26, 2005 12:25 pm

something ive only noticed with the latest version (i think) - your infantry runs away from your own tanks, this makes close tank support ridiculously difficult, and also the beginning of advances really annoying. i think its with the AI going 'shite, a tank', rather than 'shite an ENEMY tank'. other than that and a squad of infantry for some nation at sometime having 12 guys with a description of '3 rifles, 3 smg, 1 lmg' (7 guys), i see no problems with this one. still wishing for a repeat co-ordinates option for the arty tho....
________
Ford Model F history

Andy Brown · Post by **Andy Brown** » Sat Nov 26, 2005 11:28 pm

Andy

Which version is that? I think I'm a couple behind.

Andy

Andy · Post by **Andy** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 1:44 pm

3.99p, like o but with pistol sounds added (o crashed every time a pistol shot was fired, because the sound file wasnt there)
________
drug testing kit

Andy Brown · Post by **Andy Brown** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 4:14 am

OK, I got round to checking out the "infantry run away from friendly tanks" feature in 3.99p today.

I'm kinda torn by this one. As a old grunt, I can say that it's best to keep as far away from friendly tanks as possible. They don't always see you, you see, and the last thing you want is for 30 tons of steel to be slamming into emergency reverse when you're standing right behind it.

Also, they do attract fire, which is usually unhealthy for anyone nearby who's not protected by a foot of rolled homogeneous armour[*]

So the 3.99p behaviour of firefight troops is not unreasonable. I note it only happens when the individual soldiers come within 10 metres of a tank. While I agree that this is a bit annoying at the start of the battle when you're trying to get everything organised and the enemy has yet to show itself, I have to say that I'm probably about 2/3rds in favour of it to 1/3rd against.

I would be completely in favour of it except for one thing. The troops act as if friendly AFVs were enemy. Instead of just avoiding them, they duck away and go to ground as if they were hostile and that does look daft.

My suggestion to Sean would be not to worry about it unless it's the absolute last thing you need to sort out before releasing v4 and, if you are going to do anything about it, re read what I've posted here before deciding how you're going to fix it. OTOH, if you decide just to undo it, I can live with that. Soldiers WERE killed being run over by enemy tanks!

([*] A perfect example happened to me in a recent game. Using 3.99m, I had a tank engaged by about four enemy anti-armour systems. The AI directed it to take cover behind a hedge where a section of infantry were deployed. I watched three soldiers from that section get taken out by anti-tank fire aimed at the tank that was almost right on top of them. The unit roster actually showed them killed by armour-piercing rounds! )

P.S. Another reason for infantry to stay away from tanks is that they can explode quite spectacularly when they get hit.

Regards,

Andy Brown