OK, I finally got home, I will try to address some of the points that were mentioned here.
OK, Warhawks was first...
Tiger1996 wrote:I used the normal transport halftrack.
All transport HTs have speed of 3.5 which is faster than infantry (when not sprinting) so I am not sure how it happens that HTs are slower than infantry...can you give more details?
Then there is a ton of stuff from Tiger...
Tiger1996 wrote:I think it's based on realism.. how about that? isn't "realism" the solid ground that you are sticking on at the moment? You want the speed changes to be more realistic.. but not tank sight capabilities too?
The speeds are set to "realistic" values because there needs to be some starting point and then you see how that works and adjust as needed. I already said that the first version of speed changes had halftracks slow as dirt - halftracks, both US and Axis could drive in crosscountry terrain at about the speed of 20 km/h. That means the speed of "2" in the game and we already upped that to "3.5". So the current HT speeds are already above the "realistic" values and I'm fine with that. But to your "argument" about vision ranges - tank crews had limited view, true. That is why they usually drove around with hatches opened and only closed them when there was a battle ahead. This means that the crew would be able to spot a tank at bigger range and once they spotted it, they would be able to keep track of where it is (unless some obstacle covers the view again). So this "realism" you try portray here doesn't really apply. You speak about realism in terms of gun range and tank sight but to achieve that, you would first need to set realistic gun ranges whicih would mean that Tigers and 88mm L43 would be able to shoot at ranges several times higher than Shermans and on smaller maps such Tiger would be able to snipe tanks from base across half the map. All in all if you don't have realistic gun ranges, what is the point of argumenting with some realistic vision of tank crews? They would see the enemy tank pretty clearly at the engagement ranges that BK uses - there you go, realism broken again. Now you might say one of those "well, at least get as close to realism as possible", and I might ask "why try to get as close to realism as possible with vision and not with speeds?"
Tiger1996 wrote:I'm not telling you now that aim time should be removed.. but it doesn't have to be 4 seconds either!
Can be 3 seconds for example, that would work too.
I already said what complications that would bring.
Tiger1996 wrote:If you get back to the old discussions about the Stuka half-track in Terror doctrine.. one of the very common arguments that some people used to justify for the Stuka change.. was the fact that Stuka becomes too accurate with vet.2 and thus they demanded that Stuka would require 5 command points and not available by default anymore.
Stuka still has high damage per rocket (even with the current changes) and in general is probably the strongest arty piece in its category, CPs can stay.
Tiger1996 wrote:Excuse me, but you don't have to tell me what I need to realize about WorldBuilder and what I don't, as I've spent insane number of hours working on the WorldBuilder the past month(s) and thus I KNOW what I'm talking about very well.
Nodoby questions your knowledge of WorldBuilder but you react very offensively most likely because you misunderstood my point.
Tiger1996 wrote:Red areas are negative cover, meaning it's basically a road for vehicles which provides speed bonus
Green areas are heavy cover for infantry, thus vehicles would have problems moving there
And the "white" areas are the neutral areas on the map.. meaning that these white areas aren't providing any sort of speed bonus to anything, or even downgrading the speed.
True, however texture types can provide certain type of cover (e.g. some roads automatically provide red cover etc.) and speed bonuses are set for each unit separately based on what sort of cover the unit is standing. Even if you place a unit on a spot where it has no visible cover, the applied cover type is still "tp_open" and a unit can have a speed modifier in this cover type too. But that is still not what I meant. I was pointing at this:
Tiger1996 wrote:And actually such white areas are considered ideal for ANYTHING to move upon.. freely without any issues
you see it like "white area = vehicle can drive are relatively high speed" and that is because if you zoom in the white area, it seems "flat" - if you place a football on some point there, it would roll "downhill" to the lowest point. My point however was, that the texture that is used there is meant to represent some realistic surface in real world and vehicles would not be able to drive with some breath taking speeds on such surfaces because they are not flat.
Tiger1996 wrote:Well, apparently you did give the chance to implement this Kwok suggestion of "realistic" vehicle acceleration and turn rate topic, as you have just managed to significantly drop the speed for most vehicles..
You are wrong here. The reason for the speed changes was actually the rear penetration adjustments which were requested by your buddy Warhawks. He was right that flanking was not rewarding and very often you had no idea how successfull the flanking maneuver would be because the rear penetration chances were inconsistent as fuck across even same guns and even if you managed to flank some heavy tanks, their rear armor was often way stronger than it should have been. E.g. 76mm Sherman shooting at the ass of a Tiger? 43% chance to penetrate while 50mm Puma shooting at the ass of Jumbo? 75%. Pershing? 36% etc. so the penetration chances at rear were adjusted so that flanking would be more rewarding. At the same time the the heavy units gained some extra range and reload times were adjusted too with all this the heavy tanks would still be in a disadvantage - because the extra +5 range was covered with the original speeds in about less than 2 seconds. So as a supplement the movement speeds were adjusted too. Medium tanks still move faster than heavy tanks so they can overcome the gun range difference but in such speed to make the gun range insignificant.
Tiger1996 wrote:perhaps even quite carelessly as you even say right now that it's an oversight and not what was actually intended.. as you are willing to tweak it further
Now you're just getting poky but to be honest I believe that you have never modded enough to have any idea of how many files you need to work with to make the arty adjustments, the speeds adjustments, the rear penetration adjustments and the reload adjustments. If you did, you would know that oversights can be expected.
And at this point:
Tiger1996 wrote:So, now how about that you give the chance to implement other ideas on the board for beta testing...
I am getting the feeling that you perceive the situation like "kwok got his idea implemented, now I should get some of my ideas too" - I already said that the speed changes were part of a more complex change and not just based on a kwok's suggestion. And if you think that you can boss me around to turn beta into a testing ground for everyone's ideas then you are mistaken. You have no authority over me and so you don't get to make demands on what should be put in.
And don't even start saying that you "suggested for implementing ideas of others too", or that you've "never said that you want your stuff implemented"...just really...don't try this on me.
You keep mentioning that the speed changes are bad and whatnot and I think the real reason why you are against finally shows up here:
Tiger1996 wrote:There are many tank oriented players in Bk Mod, and I consider myself one of them... And so; lowering the speed of tanks and vehicles, by claiming that this is more realistic this way, while it's actually less realistic by far.. would only make those tank oriented players change 1 habit for sure(bla bla bla)
so you basically say that the changes don't need to be objectively bad but you don't want them because it hinders your playstyle. OK, good to know.
All in all your posts keep mentioning all over and over these points:
- 5.1.4 vehicle speeds were OK
- you belive the vehicle speed changes should be reverted, they are bad and worthy of death penalty
- remove flank speeds
- limit sight range of tanks
You've mentioned it like 5 times already in several posts. Your point of view is noted and clear to anyone who can read. If you have more arguments or points, cool but there is no real reason to mention these 4 points all over and over.
What I have the biggest problem with when it comes to your argumentation is pretty much this:
mofetagalactica wrote:And... what about the guys that actually like the changes and are willing to see further about how speed vehicles behave including terrain,chasis rotation speed,turret rotation speed, maybe even sight too. I don't see anithing bad with trying new things and getting feedback about it until the concept gets propertly fullfiled.
You have opinion which basically says "speed changes are bad, everyone shares this oppinion and those who don't can go fuck themselves" - you completely ignore people who like the change simply because you dislike it. That is something I cannot do.
Just one mention to drivebyhobo:
drivebyhobo wrote:This feels like a precise case of detail that should be abstracted away in favor of being intuitive. In a perfect simulation, all the vehicles would have their speeds calculated according to their gearings in response to the angle in which the specific terrain type is being traveled over.
It's far too much detail for a game engine that only has acceleration, top speed and a couple of modifiers.
When I said that "engine cannot render all these curves, it would be too hardware-heavy" I meant that the game engine cannot handle rendering a field with tons of tiny curves to reflect realistic "field surface" and that is why the terrain in the game (most games actually) is almost flat and the "surface bumpiness" is created by textures.
Then we have Jim, who cannot reply for some time now but I am still curious:
JimQwilleran wrote:Just to mention a single one, for example PE opening and general gameplay: if you slow down vehicles this will affect scout car, 28 mm car and mortar ht heavily.
Scout car still has speed of "4" which is faster than infantry, it still has same suppression effects so even sprinting infantry gets suppressed fast and on a road it gets speed of "8.5" which allows it to move on the roads faster than most other vehicles. 28mm car was mentioned over and over that its only role is to counter CW Recce. 28mm car has speed in cross country set to 3.8 while Recce has "3.9" so even if they don't take roads, they move on very similar speeds and it is not like Recce can get somewhere significantly faster than the 28mm car. Not to mention that on a road Recce has speed of "5.8" while 28mm car has speed of "8" so on a road the car will get to its destination way before Recce, so it is more about what path you choose for your units to take. As for mortar HTs - all of them suffer the speed penalty so it is not like one faction gets the upper hand in mortar HT efficiency. And for PE opening, PE still has assault pios available right from start along with the assault infantry, pios come with free StG44 which makes them probably the strongest early game infantry in the game, assualt infantry is really weak either. Given the fact that playing on high resources is recommended setting (if people don't don that, it is their problem), you should not have trouble getting them early on. I get the point with mortar HT being the only mortar available to PE but still protecting it with infantry should not be such issue from what I mentioned above.
That should cover it, if I forgot to react to someone I am sorry. It is 00:30 here and I've had a long day.
All in all what Wolf said is true - this is a testing beta and this first release is NOT final. I still think that vehicle speeds should be brought down because otherwise the other changes (higher rear penetration + adjustments to RoF + gun range adjustments to higher calibre guns) will have more negative impact on the heavies than positive ones. However they will not be as slow as now.